Libby and ’08

July 3, 2007

Realistically, the 2008 presidential campaign will unfold slowly over the next year, and there will be no shortage of the number of issues, controversies, and personalities that will shape the contest. Chances are, by October 2008, the name Scooter Libby will probably not be leading the evening newscasts’ coverage of the campaign.

But in the meantime, I think Bush’s commutation should hang around the neck of every GOP presidential hopeful. The president has not only tarnished the White House with his conduct, he’s put his party’s possible successors in an interesting position: they’re now supposed to defend — even applaud — Bush’s scandalous conduct.

Fred Thompson was first out of the gate in praising the president’s decision, and Rudy Giuliani followed shortly thereafter. With any luck, the rest of the field will soon follow. (Remember, at a recent GOP debate, none of the Republican presidential hopefuls argued in support of Libby’s prosecution.)

Perhaps, then, we can start drawing up a list of questions reporters can and should ask the GOP field:

* Will you, as president, routinely overturn criminal sentences for unrepentant convicted felons before they serve time behind bars?

* If obstruction of justice and perjury are not serious crimes deserving of serious punishment, what other felonies are you inclined to disregard?

* Will your White House out covert CIA agents in a time of war, too?

* If there are two systems of justice — one for politically-connected Republicans, and one for everyone else — how will you decide who makes the cut?

* Why is privilege more important than justice?

Feel free to add your own.

Will a promise of no jail time be part of your recruitment efforts for staffing your White House?

  • CB — People in glass houses should not throw stones…I’d ask the same questions to Hillary about “politically connected Dems, the two systems of Justice, etc…

    Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc’s former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton’s library and Hillary’s Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker’s independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]

    I have another question: Should we remove the pardon power of the President?

  • This should not be limited to just the presidential candidates. It should be hung around the necks of all GOP running for office in 2008. As I noted in the previous post:

    On the bright side, this should provide some pretty good fodder for Dem advertisements. Dems across the country should be doing what they can to force their GOP representatives and senators to take a side and comment on whether they support Bush’s decision on this. The comments received, together with some short, recent statements by Bush and Abu G. about the federal sentenceing guidelines and their application to ordinary americans, and then parts of Bush’s own words commuting Libby’s sentence should bring the message home to voters.

    Vote Democratic.

    For Justice.

    For all.

    Not just connected and wealthy Republicans.

    Comment by bubba — 7/3/2007 @ 9:27 am

  • I stole this from Atrois: Inevitably, the subject of Marc Rich comes up every time presidential pardons come up. Without going into all of the issues, can we just remind the world that… Marc Rich’s lawyer was Scooter Libby.

  • yup, every time, he’s got to use the “but clinton did it” defense. sorry, that doesn’t work.

  • “JRS Jr. – Do you condone what President Bush did? -Kevo”

    Indeed. The difference between the Clinton and Bush comparisons is that liberals like myself hated Clinton’s pardons just as much as we hate Bush’s pardon of Libby. Conservatives, on the other hand, blasted Clinton as the evilest person in the world at the time but now are turning around and telling us that Bush’s pardon is okay because “Clinton did it too.” I’ll start taking conservatives seriously when they demonstrate a consistent worldview not laden with hypocrisy.

    Yeesh, I step away from the computer for 24 hours, and all hell breaks loose…

  • What does “equal justice under the law” mean to you?

    What is more important to you – honoring the fallen you didn’t know or honoring the felons you do?

  • More differences betwen the Dem and GOP pardons: Even if Dem presidents have made some not so savory pardons, they simply are not comparable to those of the GOP presidents, solely for the fact that all of the controversial and shameful pardons by the GOP presidents have been to cover the asses of their political compadres, those who have performed egregious illegal acts while serving in the highest levels of government (and most of which happen to possibly provide cover for the further illegal acts of those doing the pardoning): Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Bush the elder’s pardons of the Iran-contra figures, and now Bush the flatulent’s pardon of Libby. The Dem pardons might in some ways cause some to question the general system of justice, but these GOP pardons go way beyond that and call into question the foundations of our government itself and the notion of accountability of our political figures to the American public.

  • Ask the benevolent Democratic Presidential candidates the same questions. I’ll bet for the most part their answers would be as shallow, contrived and sorely abject in the defense of our Constitutional Republic as the ReThug Corporate Frontmen candidates.

  • If pardoning a tax cheat (with a $1 mil fine) is just as bad as commuting the sentence for a felon who obstructed the investigation of a truly treasonous act, then I guess we have yet another example of right-wing brain melt. JRS Jr, as usual, looks very stupid indeed.

    What’s truly sad is the way the wingnuts simply cannot accept reality when it doesn’t suit them. Despite all the proof to the contrary, they still argue that Plame wasn’t covert, they still argue that there was no crime committed, they still argue that What Cheney/Libby/Bush did was destructive to national security. And now they argue that Clinton did it too.

    And they wonder why most people think they’re morons.

  • Sorry, JRS. Nobody but dedicated Clinton-haters and loyal Bushies thinks that “Clinton did it too” or “it’s all the Clintons’ fault” makes any sense. Scooter Libby is covering up a treasonous act that occurred in the White House itself. The Marc Rich fiasco isn’t even in the same league.

    Odd that Republicans who proclaim to be all about personal responsibility won’t accept responsibility for their own acts, or allow their cronies to be held accountable.

  • Notice that Bush didn’t even wait 24 hours before commuting Libby’s sentence. He couldn’t take the chance that contemplating jail time might loosen Libby’s lips.

  • Kevo: No, I think Libby should have spent at least 6-9 months in Jail — ironically a much harsher sentence I thought Clinton should have had to endure for lying under oath (1 month was my target for him). I don’t care what the lie is about, but anytime ANYONE lies under oath, they undermine the credibility of entire judicial system.

    Needless to say, I am not a fan of the Executive Pardon.

  • FWIW,

    The Wall Street Jornal has a straw poll
    “Do you agree with President Bush’s decision to spare “Scooter” Libby prison time?”

    73% voted no
    27% voted yes

    The readership of the WSJ on line is slightly more liberal than the general readership of the paper but it is still a group significantly to the right of the general population.

  • “Nobody but dedicated Clinton-haters and loyal Bushies thinks Clinton-haters and loyal Bushies thinks that “Clinton did it too” or “it’s all the Clintons’ fault” makes any sense.”

    I am not arguing it makes sense or justifies Bush’s move… I am only arguing that the Executive Pardon should be abolished… those connected to both parties have been avoiding the rule of law via the Executive Pardon for centuries, while ordinary Americans have to do the time for their crimes.

    To single out Bush and the GOP for utilizing this power (aka CB’s post above) is laughable and undermines anyone’s credibility (or shows the rabid political leanings) if they defend one side vs. the other given the history of pardons from both political parties.

  • “To single out Bush and the GOP for utilizing this power (aka CB’s post above) is laughable and undermines anyone’s credibility (or shows the rabid political leanings) if they defend one side vs. the other given the history of pardons from both political parties.”

    The only person whose credibility is undermined (assuming he/she had any left) is JRS, Jr. I state once again: “Now that just is not a true statement, and represents the zenith of false comparability. Even if Dem presidents have made some not so savory pardons, they simply are not comparable to those of the GOP presidents, solely for the fact that all of the controversial and shameful pardons by the GOP presidents have been to cover the asses of their political compadres, those who have performed egregious illegal acts while serving in the highest levels of government (and most of which happen to possibly provide cover for the further illegal acts of those doing the pardoning): Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Bush the elder’s pardons of the Iran-contra figures, and now Bush the flatulent’s pardon of Libby. The Dem pardons might in some ways cause some to question the general system of justice, but these GOP pardons go way beyond that and call into question the foundations of our government itself and the notion of accountability of our political figures to the American public.

    But I expect that you, JRS, Jr. would not understand such things.”

  • Clinton engaged in fellatio in the Oval Office and suffered impeachment at the hands of Congress. Bush outright raped this nation’s legal system in the Oval Office and his punishment will be …?

  • I think Libby should have spent at least 6-9 months in Jail

    bush couldn’t do that. scooter woulda sang.

  • In 2006 Newt Gingrich suggested that Democrats use the slogan “had enough”?

    Well, for 2008 the Democrats ought to use the Bush legacy of failure and corruption against the Republicans with this slogan: “Do you want more of the same“?

  • “To single out Bush and the GOP for utilizing this power (aka CB’s post above) is laughable and undermines anyone’s credibility (or shows the rabid political leanings) if they defend one side vs. the other given the history of pardons from both political parties.”

    You do realize that this sentence is just another way of saying, “Clinton did it too”? We’re singling out Bush and the GOP for utilizing this power because they just used it, in pretty much the worst possible way , and every GOP Presidential candidate has said it was the right thing to do. I don’t recall Gore cheering on Clinton’s decision in 2000; back then, it was considered embarrassing and was decried by the left as well as the right. However, Bush, the GOP, and RW commenters like you have had six years of pretty much unfettered power, and during that time you’ve all said absolutely nothing about it. If the GOP really hated Presidential pardons that much, you had a great opportunity right after Clinton left office, but bupkiss happened.

    By the way, the abolishment of executive pardon and Bush’s particular shitty decision are almost independent topics. Even if one believes the President should have some freedom in this regard, one can still say that his pardoning of Libby was one of the most vile pardons ever (second most vile: Ford’s pardon of Nixon).

  • A very, very fine line you draw there, Bubba — and a line that probably moves a bit depending on the circumstance.

    I guess your argument is the GOP’s pardons have been “more inappropriate” than the Dems!

  • I’m against any President having pardon power.

    It always seems that Republican Presidents use the power to let traitors go free.

  • Looks like Mitt Romney is either a complete moron, or he’s just doing what Mitt does, suck up to whoever his latest target audience is:

    Campaigning in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Mr. Romney said, “I believe that the circumstances of this case, where the prosecutor knew that there had not been a crime committed, created a setting where a decision of this nature was reasonable.”

    So he thinks Fitzgerald, a Republican, actually “knew that there had not been a crime committed”, but he prosecuted Libby anyway, and somehow convinced a jury and a judge to convict and sentence poor Scooter Libby, even though no crime was committed.

    I can’t believe the people of Massachusetts elected that fricking idiot.

    Here’s what I want to know… Do the wingnuts really buy their own crap? Are they so stupid that they really believe this shit? My theory is that the wingnuts have been whipped up by Rush and Pat Robertson and every other radical Republican into hating Democrats so much that they can then assign any and all kinds of evil motives to them (and us). Then they use these ficticious evil deeds (see the Clinton Chronicles) to make excuses for the truly evil shit their leaders get caught doing (and for which they are occasionally tried and convicted). Watergate, Iran Contra, Plamegate, on and on and on, over and over and over.

  • “I guess your argument is the GOP’s pardons have been “more inappropriate” than the Dems!”

    Um, yes. Are you truly this stupid, JRS, Jr.?

    And you definitely do not understand the whole ‘pardon power’ thing. It is a power that has some very honorable and well thought out beginnings. It is a power that was included in the Constitution for its ability to achieve justice. It is a power that is provide primarily to protect the innocent, primarily those who have commited no crime but have been persecuted (and prosecuted) solely for political purposes. True, many pardons have been issued to people who may not deserve it, but the fact of the matter is that it is a protection for the innocent–just like the legal theories of “innocent until proven guilty” and other legal rights granted in the criminal arena. These rights aare designed to protect the innocent, even though when in the hands of the incompetent or the criminal they can be used in ways that protect those who should not have necessarily benefitted from them. There are many unjust uses of the power that anyone can point to. However, the level of such unjustness can be analyzed and looked at with a rational mind to conclude that the most recent and controversial uses of this power by Dem and GOP presidents is simply not comparable.

    I would bet, by your obvious lack of understanding on this and other issues, that you also have no problem flushing habeas corpus rights down the toilet. Foolish, you are.

  • Racerx wrote: “Then they use these ficticious evil deeds (see the Clinton Chronicles) to make excuses for the truly evil shit their leaders get caught doing (and for which they are occasionally tried and convicted).”

    I’ve had the same view of R’s in particular and fanatics in general for a long, long time, and I suspect there must be a psychological study or two out there about this.

    The R’s are not unlike Al Qaeda in this regard. Even though Islam, like every other mainstream religion, considers murder the worst sin, they excuse themselves by arguing that they’re fighting against the worst evil in the world , i.e. the West, and therefore earn a ‘get out of jail free’ card for any sin they commit. Similarly, the R’s don’t care if they subvert and destroy the Constitution, because they’re ‘protecting’ the country from those truly evil Democrats!

  • And in light of the current events of a horribly politicized DOJ and a federal court system filled with thug cronies of people who have no problem distorting the levers of justice to get their way politically and to hold on to power, does anyone think it wise to eliminate a presidential power (in the hands of the opposition party) that might be the only chance or recourse one has from being saved from being wrongly convicted and imprisoned?

  • JRS – I don’t know if the power to pardon should be removed from the Presidential powers. I think that the subject is too complex to cover in comments like these, but I do appreciate what you are getting at.

    Politics is a blood sport. The current crop of Republicans is the most brutal I have seen in my lifetime, and take that a “whine” if you like. However, with the exception of fealty to monied interests, I see no equivalence between the two parties any more. The Republicans act like the French Royalty prior to the revolution. Cannon fodder & tax collection, that’s all anyone (but we Royal Republicans) is good for.

    So, while your suggestion about turning this power over to a panel is thought provoking, it ain’t gonna happen.

  • Thompson will suffer due to his almost unconditional support of Bush’s decision. Its up to his opponents to decide how much he’ll suffer.

  • Racerx wrote: “Then they use these ficticious evil deeds (see the Clinton Chronicles) to make excuses for the truly evil shit their leaders get caught doing (and for which they are occasionally tried and convicted).”

    One more thought: the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario the R’s obsess over is a Freudian insight into their ‘ultimate evil’ mindset. They don’t like the laws of the country, so they have to fashion (in their own depraved little minds) ‘doomsday scenarios’ and ‘ultimate enemies’ in which any action is justified. The ‘ticking bomb’ is just an overt expression of their furious rationalization.

  • Bubba, the difference is between you and I is that I can be infuriated and criticize both parties, and be appalled at both parties, where you chose to excuse and condone one party’s negative actions while prosecuting the other’s for committing quite similar actions.

    Yes, I do think getting kick-backs for a pardon is as bad as what Bush has done here — they both equally undermine the faith in the justice system and both severely damage the reputation of the pardon as a way to “protect the innocent” that you so cherish. This is yet another example through a long list of examples through the last several decades.

    So, Bubba wipe your lips of that white foam and keep drinking your Kool Aid!!

  • “So, Bubba wipe your lips of that white foam and keep drinking your Kool Aid!!”

    You are a funny man, that is for sure! Wrong on most issues, but funny nonetheless.

  • “Bubba, the difference is between you and I is that I can be infuriated and criticize both parties, and be appalled at both parties, where you chose to excuse and condone one party’s negative actions while prosecuting the other’s for committing quite similar actions.”

    I’m sorry, I must have missed your ‘fury’ and your ‘criticism’ of the Republicans – all I read was that you gently disagreed with the President’s decision (#17), immediately following up with another shot at Clinton! Sorry, but the word ‘criticism’ is defined as: “The act of criticizing, especially adversely.” (italics mine.) If you’re not going to say that what Bush did was wrong without whining “Clinton did it too!”, you’ve got no right to claim moral outrage, and you’re a bloody hypocrite for claiming other people are ‘excusing’ and ‘condoning’. You obviously are more concerned with the Mark Rich decision that happened six years ago than the Libby pardon that happened 24 hours ago – that’s partisan, if anything is.

    In other words, finish off your own Kool Aid – and hurry up and get your Nikes on, ’cause the next comet could be passing by any moment!

  • Hey JRS Jr. – Don’t mess with my Constitution! Don’t touch it to eliminate Executive pardon power, just use it to impeach a ne’erdowell who has debased it for far too long now! -Kevo

  • JRS Jr,

    Who was Marc Rich’s lawyer during those 20 years? Uh, Scooter Libby.

    ’nuff said.

  • JRS Jr, my problem with you (today) is that you’re dragging Clinton into this solely for the purpose of derailing the discussion of the current situation. And then you pretend that you’re trying to bring us all to your “wisdom” that the problem lies with the power of the executive pardon.

    The problem, sir, (or ma’am, or it, or whatever the hell you are) is not the tool, but that the President, after a lifetime of showing no mercy to others charged with crimes (and bloviating on the importance of laws), has commuted the sentence of someone whose obstruction of justice assisted in the treasonous act of exposing a covert agent for small political gain (and has shown no remorse for his crime).

    Clinton did not do this. I have heard no legitimate argument that what Marc Rich did was a crime against the entire nation, as Scooter’s most certainly is. If you want to argue that Clinton was wrong in that pardon (or that presidential pardons are a bad idea), that is your right, but to bring it up here is purposely dishonest.

    It is exactly what your hero Joe Lieberman would do though, so in that sense, you’re right on track.

  • Look, whatever the many holes in the comparison he’s trying to draw, JRS has an underlying point with which I agree. in my view, the Presidential pardon or commute is a holdover from the divine right of kings, and should be abolished. Perhaps a system where the President can petition the Supreme Court for pardons would be fair. The result might have been identical in this instance, but in a system of checks and balances, the power to pardon should not be invested in one person.

  • Who was Marc Rich’s lawyer during those 20 years? Uh, Scooter Libby.

    ’nuff said.

    What the hell does that prove????

  • To return to the topic of the post, I do hope we can hang this albatross around the necks of the GOP presidential nominees… but I’m not holding my breath as our so-called liberal media has fumbled this story at pretty much every opportunity… and nothing has indicated that they’re going to change their tune for the candidates that they think have big shoulders and/or smell manly.

    Are we going to be able to beat this drum loud enough?

  • Antonius is correct about the pardoning power of the president being a hold over from the king. The framers did much debate the wisdom of giving the President such unchecked powers. James Mason foresaw that a president might use this power to pardon someone who had committed crimes commissioned by the president or to derail investigations. James Madison contended that there was a check on the power which could be used in such a situation:impeachment. Go read Kagro X

  • You obviously are more concerned with the Mark Rich decision that happened six years ago than the Libby pardon that happened 24 hours ago – that’s partisan, if anything is.

    Was Libby actually pardoned, gg?? That is news to me. I thought his sentance was commuted. if I was Scooter, I’d sure like to have a pardon rather than a commutation!

    I am not more concerned with the Rich pardon, but simply pointing history of the pardon out to show that the Executive Pardon is a flawed power of the Executive that BOTH parties have abused in the past and will continue to do so until that power is limited.

    As recent history shows, the only thing this power does is undermines the credibility of the entire judicial system.

  • “#

    Who was Marc Rich’s lawyer during those 20 years? Uh, Scooter Libby.

    ’nuff said.

    What the hell does that prove????

    Comment by JRS Jr — 7/3/2007 @ 12:25 pm ”

    Nothing. About as valid as you using the example of Marc Rich (who is a scumbag.)

  • “Was Libby actually pardoned, gg?? That is news to me. I thought his sentance was commuted. if I was Scooter, I’d sure like to have a pardon rather than a commutation!”

    Wow; your skill at nitpickery astounds me; truly you are a master of rhetorical arguing. I’m sure your ability to spot mistyped words served you very well in Junior High debate class. Speaking of which, you misspelled ‘sentence’. Oh, and you forgot to capitalize “if”. We’re all still waiting for you to address any of the points brought up in this post, without returning to your old standby, “Clinton did it too.” (Junior high grade for such arguing: D+, at best.)

    Are you really so naive and/or foolish to believe that your response is actually an argument? I’m sure Libby would prefer a pardon rather than a commutation, but no one in their right mind would think that the difference will cost him any future money, speaking engagements, or jobs. Or that any argument posted here would be substantially different if it was a full pardon.

  • “JRS Jr, my problem with you (today) is that you’re dragging Clinton into this solely for the purpose of derailing the discussion of the current situation. And then you pretend that you’re trying to bring us all to your “wisdom” that the problem lies with the power of the executive pardon.”

    Well put. Another way to say it is that regardless of the wisdom of the law, Bush chose to abuse it. It’s truly ironic that the party of ‘personal responsibility’ seems to think that, in essence, Bush had no choice but to misuse his governmental powers. (“Your honor, it’s not my fault that I stole his wallet. He just left it lying there in the open, right where I could get it!”) We’ll have the discussion of the wisdom of executive pardon another day, but we won’t do it now and let Bush off the hook for his disgusting behavior. He did it.

  • “Or that any argument posted here would be substantially different if it was a full pardon.”

    Other than the fact that a commutation keeps in place Libby’s ability to plead the 5th and continue to maintain his silence and refuse to provide testimony that likely would implicate Cheney and may implicate Bush. Had Bush pardoned Libby, Libby would then no longer be able to invoke the 5th amendment to protect his owners. So in reality and effect, the commutation is an even worse slap in the face of justice than a pardon.

  • “Other than the fact that a commutation keeps in place Libby’s ability to plead the 5th and continue to maintain his silence… ”

    Damn. Also well put. What are the odds we’ll hear this sort of insight on one of the major networks?

  • JRS Jr

    Specious argument at best. They did it so it’s OK for us to do it? I think that one was debunked by my first grade teacher with a rap across the knuckles and an hour sitting in the corner. I don’t believe I ever heard that one from any Democratic legislator before. However, if one ever did how would it sit with you?

    Not to mention the little “articles of impeachment” drawn up against one William Jefferson Clinton. So I for one don’t want to hear anything as juvenile as “he did it too”. God, you guys are so incapable of accepting reality, responsibility or reason.

  • You guys are missing my point.. I am not excusing either President Bush or President Clinton… but while you all throw stones at Bush, I want you to reflect on how Clinton also abused his power of the Pardon and reflect on how this power has been abused time and time again, by both parties by multiple Presidents.

    So Charlie, how the heck is that saying if one did it, it’s ok for the other to do it??

    • Comments are closed.