Knee Bone Connected To The Arm Bone

Ross Ross

So Scooter Libby, convicted by a jury of his peers, has been unconvicted by El Presidente. The ability of the President to pardon is enshrined in the constitution, and is generally constrained only by the ethics of the grantee of the power. Bush, determined to break down the agreements and conventions that have kept the country running for hundreds of years, has begun to pardon his inner circle. Under the Bush theory of the Presidency, any subordinate can commit a crime and be "pardoned", or have his or her sentence commuted in advance. This leaves us with the uncomfortable situation of having a rather unconstrained executive branch, to say the least. Near as I can tell there is only ONE remedy for a President that abuses his authority in this fashion: Impeachment.

The President can pardon like mad unless Congress decides to remove him from office; I wonder what it would take to begin the process. I've been curious about how the GOP intends to shield its minions from a pissed-off inbound executive. Pardons can only happen if a prosecution has taken place, so unless they get those prosecutions cracking now, they're going to be unshielded later on.

This is one of the highest profile cases on record that quantifies exactly how the dual system of justice in this country works.

Colleague Patton wrote not too long ago on this very topic, so I guess you could say that we disagree. The question remains: Where is the check and balance on the Executive when it comes to pardoning his own inner circle?

And just so we're clear, I believe that the GOP has, in this round of administration, done nothing less than break down the barriers between church, state AND party. When members of the executive are emailing each other on their GOP party accounts discussing the introduction of the church into policy, you've got quite a trifecta underway.

Posted by Ross Ross on   |   § 8

§ 8 Comments

1

As discussed in a post a few weeks ago, Bush lost me and most other conservatives a couple of years ago.

That being said, this kind of overheated, hyperventilating nonsense is why we still prefer Bush over any Democrat alternative.

Without re-hashing the whole case, this incident shows everything wrong with Independent Counsels. Tasked with determining whether a covert agent was illegally exposed, who did it, and should he/she be prosecuted, Fitzgerald quickly found that she wasn't covert, that is was Dick Armitage, and then prosecuted an ancillary player so he could get a scalp.

Libby's commuted sentence hardly compares with the Clinton pardons of terrorists, thieves, and drug dealers.

If anyone on the left ever wants to be taken seriously, you have to acquire some sense of proportion. (I hope you don't) Otherwise, it's back to minority status in 2008.

Bram Bram

2

Ross,

I like you. I don't know a lot about you, but you married a knockout, so that counts for boucoup points on my scorecard. You also write well. That also counts for points.

You lose me, however, when you jump on the bandwagon about Bush pardoning Libby. Bush should have sent an agent to shoot Fitzgerald. In the great scheme of things, how can you, in you most drunken, mind addled imagination, compare the commutation of Libby's sentence to the pardon if Marc Rich?

Clinton pardoned a man who comitted demonstrable felonies, and who is tied, demonstrably, to kickbacks to Bill's half-brother.

Jeebus, man. Get a grip. This is a night and day comparison, and if you can't see that, you need some serious time off.

I've got some serious issues with Dubya, but I fully expect him to pardon Libby if his appeals don't pan out. It's the least the man could do, considering what went on during this fucking witch hunt.

Respects,

AW1 Tim AW1 Tim

3

Ross,
I really wish you would lose the pretense and continual pussy-footing around topics like this. When are you going to finally write what you really feel?

Sheesh.

GeekLethal GeekLethal

4

Does the fact that Libby was a top member of the administration have any bearing on the case? Do you think that it sets good precedent for a President to pardon members of his executive?

What is the message, if not "if you lie in court trying to protect me, it's ok"?

If it's a witch hunt, is it _generally ok_ for senior administrations to decide when they will tell the truth in legal proceedings? Is it OK for the President to decide if the truth is optional?

Republicans may say this is no big deal -- fine -- please generalize from this pardon what kinds of behaviors are encouraged and discouraged. I suppose it's legitimate to simply say "that's how the ball bounces" when it comes to the pardon power, and make it irreducible past the President's whims.

I think that when a President is pardoning and commuting some of his closest executive, he really ought to show the good sense to butt out and recuse himself.

Once again, I don't really see anyone answering the question: Did Libby lie to the grand jury or not? Is it an uncomfortable question?

Then there's the deeper question: Is it OK to lie to a grand jury (or in any court proceeding) if no underlying crime has taken place?

Ross Ross

5

"Once again, I don’t really see anyone answering the question: Did Libby lie to the grand jury or not? Is it an uncomfortable question?"

Nobody is answering because nobody knows. Did Libby deliberately mislead investigators in order to protect himself or his bosses? Probably not – there was nothing to protect them from. Did his version of events not match his notes or the recollections of other people? – yes. Why would he intentionally contradict his own notes that he knew the FBI already had? Why would he lie when he didn’t leak Phlame's name? Why was he prosecuted? Did his behavior warrant years in prison, confiscation of his savings, and the complete destruction of his life? Why isn’t Sandy Burglar in jail? What was the question again?

Bram Bram

6

Sure we know, Bram. He was convicted by the jury, and that's about as good as we're going to do. So is there something special about this jury verdict that you don't like? Was it a political jury? Or was the jury just helpless in the face of all that prosecutorial bamboozlement?

Confiscation of his savings...the 5 million in his legal fund will probably help...

Ross Ross

8

So Scooter Libby, convicted by a jury of his peers, has been unconvicted by El Presidente.

This is a lie. But you knew that, of course.

Bush, determined to break down the agreements and conventions that have kept the country running for hundreds of years, has begun to pardon his inner circle

This is wrong. But you knew that, of course.

I’ve been curious about how the GOP intends to shield its minions from a pissed-off inbound executive. Pardons can only happen if a prosecution has taken place, so unless they get those prosecutions cracking now, they’re going to be unshielded later on.

This is the deranged yawp of a lunatic.

The question remains: Where is the check and balance on the Executive when it comes to pardoning his own inner circle?

The constitutional right of the Executive branch to pardon and commute is a check on the Judicial branch. But of course you knew that. As for the question: you yourself already answered it. It's called impeachment.

So look - Libby supporters ask how somebody can accurately recall 2-year-old conversations given the amount, degree, and kind of mind-numbing business that he has to deal with on a daily basis. Those who convicted him of perjury said that they thought he was a nice guy, that they wished they could help him out, but that the evidence was quite clear that he perjured himself. They heard the evidence - I didn't. There's no doubt that perjury should be punished. As it will be wrt Libby.

Bush's statement re commutation lays out a brief summary of the competing arguments - I think you should read it. I suspect that you're aware of it. And have ignored it. Along with any other summary of the commutation. How else to explain your rant? Your babbling starts with an untruth and escalates to a lunatic conspiracy theory. You build a castle in the air out of nothing and thereby invalidate your entire post. If you want to describe your displeasure with the commutation, you should. If you want anyone to take you seriously, drop the lunacy.

MakeMineRed

MakeMineRed MakeMineRed

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]