Taking pardons off the table

The only real talk about a presidential pardon for Scooter Libby (or anyone else in the Plame scandal) has been coming from the left — the White House won’t comment on the possibility at all — but that’s all the more reason for Dems to get out in front of the issue. That’s what Harry Reid and other Dem leaders did today in a letter to Bush.

Although it is too early to judge Mr. Libby guilty or innocent of these particular charges, it is not too early for you to reassure the American people that you understand the enormous gravity of the allegations. To this end, we urge you to pledge that if Mr. Libby or anyone else is found guilty of a crime in connection with Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation, you will not exercise your authority to issue a Presidential pardon.

It is crucial that you make clear in advance that, if convicted, Mr. Libby will not be able to rely on his close relationship with you or Vice President Cheney to obtain the kind of extraordinarily special treatment unavailable to ordinary Americans. In addition you should do nothing to undermine Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation or diminish accountability in your White House. A pardon in these circumstances would signal that this White House considers itself above the law.

We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White House — including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President Cheney — has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby. Particularly given that the American people are still in the dark about what precisely transpired in the White House with respect to the CIA leak, it would be highly inappropriate if there were such discussions going on behind the scenes.

This follows up on Reid’s remarks during his press briefing yesterday.

“I don’t know whether we’re going to call this Libby-gate or pardon-gate, but I think the president should come forward now — now — and say he’s not going to pardon any of the people involved in the leaking of classified information. He should do that.

“I think that, with his not coming forward to say that, it sends a message to the American people that isn’t a very good, positive message — message. I mean … are people in the White House being told by certain high-ranking officials in the White House not to worry; the president’s going to pardon you; don’t worry about it?”

Reid is clearly playing hardball here.

The only Republican I’ve heard raise the possibility of a Bush pardon is Joe diGenova, the GOP lawyer who investigated “filegate.” It’s not as if Senate Dems need to knock down a stated WH strategy.

Still, as Tim Grieve noted, there may be a message for Libby in all of this, in addition to a warning to Bush.

If Libby knows he’ll be pardoned, he has no incentive to cooperate with Fitzgerald and every incentive to simply drag out the prosecution as long as he possibly can. If, on the other hand, Libby knows that a pardon is off the table, he may decide it’s worth his while to strike a deal with Fitzgerald in which he gives up information on others in the White House — or force a trial in which Cheney and others White House officials would inevitably be forced to testify. The Democrats have got to like those prospects, and they know that the prospect of a presidential pardon could stand in the way of either of them.

With that, Reid’s letter may not be just another stunt to keep the Plame story alive.

NO PARDON’S!! Will Bush really say this? I doubt it.

  • If Bush pardons Libby – for perjury and obstruction of justice that (1) prevented Fitzgerald from discerning the dimensions of the crime(s) committed around the outing of Valerie Plame and (2) prevented the political system from working (by permitting Fitzgerald to conclude his investigation in time for the voters to consider his findings) – then is there any reason that such a pardon would not constitute obstruction of justice and conspiracy, by itself, on Bush’s part?

    And *THAT*, I would think, would have to be an impeachable offense.

  • I’m fairly certain that the exercise of the president’s executive authority would be immune from prosecutoral challenge. I.e., it can’t constitute a criminal act, regardless of the motivation.

    However, as I see it, this is a win-win situation. If Bush pardons Libby, he further undermines his credibility with the people and makes it look like he’s trying to cover up the leak conspiracy executed by his top staffers. If he doesn’t, then Libby has a motive to cooperate with Fitzgerald or force a trial, as Carpetbagger noted. Either way it’s a windfall for the Democrats.

  • I actually see it as win-win-win…

    Seriously, as an end game, I agree with James. But I think that beating this drum is a winner all by itself.

    I can’t even fathom a GOP talking point to deflect “the prosecutor already indicated that he was unable to adaquately investigate a horrific breach in National Security because of Libby’s obstruction, isn’t the President interested in national security?”

    Beat the drum. No answer, win, no pardon, win, refuse to take pardon off the table, win… Then get to the endgame and either have guilt-by-association, win, or ‘can-they-really-pay-you-off for decades?’, win…

    -jjf

  • Somewhat off-topic (but not as bad as the first time today, I promise!) but I think that everyone should stop trying to come up with the best _____gate name they can come up with to compare this scandal with Watergate. The scandal around doctoring the evidence to go to war in Iraq and then leaking the name of a CIA operative to punish someone who got in their way, that is bigger than Watergate. It deserves its own name. Call it the Plame scandal, the Niger scandal, the yellowcake scandal, the Wilson scandal, the IRAQ scandal, whatever, but stop trying to reference another scandal’s name to inflate the importance of something that’s already bigger than the referenced scandal, Watergate.

  • Rian,

    It seems to me that “GOP CIA OUTING” is the right phrase. It’s short, It gets everything in,, no matter who finally gets indicted. I agree with you emphatically that “-gate” is a dodo anymore, and that this felonious act of treason was much, much more serious than anything that happened in the Watergate Hotel all those years ago.

  • There is a possibility of losing, depending on what your goals are. Libby could (and appears to be willing to) challenge the indictment long and hard, drawing out the process in the courts. Will this delay the rest of Fitzgerald’s investigation? I’m not sure, but it sure sounds like an excellent tactic to help stall until long after Bush is out of office and no longer accountable to anyone.

  • I agree that the something-gate names have got to stop. How about “Republican Treason” or “Treason in the White House”.

  • Comments are closed.