Thursday, June 14, 2007

Libby

Well we will now see whether Bush has any cojones. The judge has ruled that Libby must go to jail while his case is being appealed. Everyone knows that Bush was going to pardon him when he left office, but will he risk the press jumping on him to go ahead and do it now. The press is going to complain no matter what he does, and the left is not going to give him any credit for allowing Libby to be sent to jail. They are so upset that Bush, Cheney, and Rove are not going too that they will never be happy. But conservatives expect Bush to pardon Libby, and after his pressing so hard for an immigration bill most conservatives hate, he damn well better "grow a pair" and pardon Libby now, or his support is going to fall below the 19% that Senator Reid has.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course Republicans want the President to pardon the felon, because Republicans are all "rule of law" and "accountable". (LOL)

Andrew said...

Is there any disregard for our legal system you dishonest conservative hacks won't advocate?

Tom Delay found unethical? Let's change the rules on that!

Libby indicted by a jury of his peers? Let's change the rules on that!

You're all by-the-rule-of-law Americans till you don't get your tantruming way.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the right wing wants to legitimize lying to investigators...I can see why as so many of their people seem to be factually challenged.

Anonymous said...

Compare the right-wing rending of garments over poor, misunderstood Scooter ("but he's such a good man!") to their rigid adherence to the letter of the law when it comes to illegal immigrants. Very in-ter-est-ing...

Paul said...

Libby indicted by a jury of his peers? Let's change the rules on that!

"The rules," as found in the Constitution, expressly provide for presidential pardons.

Anonymous said...

Pardon The Quadruple Felons!
Pardon The Quadruple Felons!
Pardon The Quadruple Felons!

Maybe you guys could organize another Brooks Bro's riot.

andrew said...

"The rules," as found in the Constitution, expressly provide for presidential pardons.

Bush is well within his power to pardon him. No disagreement there. But there lies a vast difference between the power to do something and the wisdom not to.

To be perfectly honest, I'm in complete agreement with Don, though for different reasons... I WANT the President to pardon him. It'd put the last nail in the so-called "Reagan Revolution" and leave for dead any credibility the GOP might have left.

For your sakes, you better hope Libby remains unnoticed by The Commander Guy.

Paul said...

You said:
But conservatives expect Bush to pardon Libby

That is wrong. No conservatives expect Bush to pardon Libby. Conservatism is a philosophy that places a value on the rule of law, and takes a dim view of the practice of letting convicted felons go free.

What you probably meant to say is "right-wing authoritarians expect Bush to pardon Libby."

Full disclosure is important.

Don Singleton said...

If you compare what Libby did (not what the left wants people to think he did) with what some of the real felons that Clinton pardoned the difference is between night and day.

The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure.

US Constitution Article 2 Section 2 provides The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Paul said...

If you compare what Libby did (not what the left wants people to think he did) with what some of the real felons that Clinton pardoned the difference is between night and day.

And your point is...?

That if Clinton let off some convicted felons (which made me very angry at the time), that means that Bush Administration officials are allowed to commit perjury and obstruct justice? In other words, two wrongs in this case makes a right. Is that your belief?

If Libby gets pardoned because he doesn't have to obey the law as you and I do, how far would you like this to go? Should every single person in the administration be granted immunity from any and all prosecution? Or just the senior members?

Also, should this apply to a democratic administration as well?

I'm very interested to understand the philosophy you're applying here.

Anonymous said...

That if Clinton let off some convicted felons...

like who, Mark Rich?

does anyone here know who Mark Rich's attorney was ? come on, take a guess.

cbmc said...

Yeah, Don, I have to say, moral consistency is the problem. There was much howling from the right side of the fence when Clinton did his mass pardoning. For sure: he has the power to pardon; nobody's questioning whether the President has the power or the legal right. The question here is moral authority, which, again, the right seemed to think President Clinton didn't have.

A pardon here would be an abnegation of moral authority; that's a hell of a trade to make.

Reluctant Republican said...

That if Clinton let off some convicted felons...

An important distinction here is that Libby's felonies occurred in the service of the folks handing out the pardons. A clearer quid pro quo is difficult to imagine.

The stink this would raise on the GOP will last a generation.

Anonymous said...

The stink this would raise on the GOP will last a generation.

Nonsense! Ford pardoned Richard Fucking Nixon. Bush I pardoned all those Iran-Contra felons.

And Bush II has been shitting on our country for the past 6 years.

Pardons don't hurt at all.

Paul said...

The stink this would raise on the GOP will last a generation.

I agree with Anonymous. Only those paying attention would know that the GOP had done a quid-pro-quo using pardons, to reward their good soldier for keeping quite about the misdeeds of the administration.

But for the vast majority of Americans, they'll be too busy watching American Idol to even notice.

No, I don't think there will be much political fallout from this. And since Republicans seem immune from shame, I'm sure none of them will be losing any sleep over it.

The problem is that this presidential pardon thing is being heavily abused. Ford abused it, Bush I abused it, Clinton abused it, and now Bush II will probably abuse it. How much abuse of this power is necessary before someone finally says, "Pardons are for monarchs. This country follows the rule of law" and abolishes this power for the good of the country?

No doubt Don Singleton hopes that this power remains intact long enough to get one more Republican out of the pokey.

Paul said...

does anyone here know who Mark Rich's attorney was ? come on, take a guess.

Well whataya know about that? Scotter Libby represented Mark Rich!

Don Singleton said...

Clinton let off people that would donate to his library or his wife's senate campaign. Why is that ok, but bad for Bush to pardon someone that he thought did a good job helping his VP, but who was not going to be helping his administration or any other member of his family.

Paul said...

Why is that ok, but bad for Bush to pardon someone that he thought did a good job helping his VP, but who was not going to be helping his administration or any other member of his family.

Don, your reasoning sounds like that of a little kid. C'mon, man, you're old enough to know that two wrongs does not make a right.

Clinton's pardons were not okay, as no doubt you very much agree (or perhaps did until recently). And, in classifying Libby as someone who "did a good job for the VP," keep in mind that that good job required he break the law. Is this what you want from your executive branch, Don?

Again, I ask you, since you think Libby should not be answerable to our country's laws, tell me who else should be so exempt? The whole executive branch? Future (democratic) executive branches? C'mon, don't be shy. Tell us your whole philosophy on this.

Sirkowski said...

When has Bush ever listened to you?

Guy said...

Libby should be incarcerated in Aby Ghraib or Gitmo, and his name forever associated with that of Alger Hiss as a traitor to his country. Don needs to forget his "cojones" fantasies and look soberly & manfully at the effects on the country of the people & policies fpr whom he's cheerleading & punking.

Anonymous said...

Here's my question:

If perjury should result in someone spending time in prison, why didn't Bill Clinton spend any time in prison?

JAW said...

Oh, Oh, Professor Anonymous! I know the answer!

Because Clinton was never convicted of perjury, unlike Libby.

Bill Thompson said...

I think a blanket pardon on all future treasonous acts -- provided they are made by members of the republic party that is -- are in order. That should cover most of w's cronies.

Anonymous said...

Ooo, ooo, Professor JAW, and just WHY do you think Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury?

Let's see if you'll take off the blinders long enough to be honest...

JAW said...

OK Anonymous, I thought it was because he didn't actually commit perjury, but why don't you tell me your opinion.

Since I answered you, please answer this: If Clinton should have been tried for perjury, why should Libby be let off for the same offense (in addition to the other three counts including obstruction and lying to investigators)?

Paul said...

Here is the mindset on display by our ever-so-thoughtful host, Don Singleton:

Because Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, it means that Bush should pardon Libby. How these two acts of injustice are related is never explained.

Although Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, Libby should be pardoned, because perjury is only a crime if a democrat commits it.

Bush Administration officials should not answer to the law of the land. In essence, they are royalty and we are their subjects. However, regarding the next administration which is likely to be democratic, Don Singleton has already donated to the "blue dress fund."

Don Singleton said...

Because Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, it means that Bush should pardon Libby. How these two acts of injustice are related is never explained.


Did I say Clinton pardoning Rich was an injustice? I actually think he f\did it just because he wanted to get into the pants of Rich's wife. And he pardoned the two jewish guys because Hillary needed their support in her campaign for senator. Not sure why he pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists. But it was just as legal as Bush pardoning Libby would be. The power granted in Article 2 Section 2 is absolute.

Although Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, Libby should be pardoned, because perjury is only a crime if a democrat commits it.

That is clearly not the case, because do you know how to tell a Democrat is lying. His mouth is moving.

Bush Administration officials should not answer to the law of the land.

The highest part of the "Law of the Land" is the Constitution, including Article 2 Section 2: he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States

Anonymous said...

Don Singleton wants pardons for Charlie Manson and Scott Peterson.
After all, it's legal for Bush to do so.

BTW, the other millions of felons in America's jail agree with you Don.

Don Singleton said...

Don Singleton wants pardons for Charlie Manson and Scott Peterson.
After all, it's legal for Bush to do so.


Actually both were convicted of violation of State Law, and I am not sure the President can pardon them. But even if he can, I do not believe he should. Both committed murder, which is far worse than even willful purgery, and certainly worse than having a bad memory.

Paul said...

Did I say Clinton pardoning Rich was an injustice? I actually think he f\did it just because he wanted to get into the pants of Rich's wife. And he pardoned the two jewish guys because Hillary needed their support in her campaign for senator.

Okay, so I take you think Clinton's actions were perfectly correct, and that no travesty of justice occurred, right? A convicted criminal, whose wife the president wants to shag, deserves to go free, according to Don Singleton? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.

Or rather, did you (rightly) scream like a stuck pig when Clinton pardoned Rich, but have since modified your viewpoint now simply because you support the convicted felon in this case?

That is clearly not the case, because do you know how to tell a Democrat is lying. His mouth is moving.

Well, I guess the raw stupidity displayed in that statement clearly indicates why the rest of your comments have an absolute dearth of intelligence. Thanks for the disclosure.

But, since you are terrified to address this question directly, I have to restate it again and again, making you look like a cowardly fool on your own blog. My question is:

How far would you like to see this trend go? Should all members of the executive branch be immune from prosecution? Or just from Republican administrations?

C'mon, don't be shy. You can answer these questions by telling us how you really feel, rather than demonstrating your very impressive skills at copying and pasting Article 2, Section 2. (Too bad you don't value the rest of that document the same way.)

Paul said...

Both committed murder, which is far worse than even willful purgery, and certainly worse than having a bad memory.

Okay then. You've finally drawn a line there. Murderers do not deserve a pardon. Perjurers do.

Now, since I'm sure you've held that view consistently all along, because you have far too much integrity to flip flop on an issue like this simply because there's a Republican involved, please answer me this:

What did you think of the Clinton impeachment? Clinton committed perjury too, just like Libby. Only Clinton's perjury was about a personal matter, whereas Libby's perjury was done to mask the daily operations of the highest level of our government as it defends its case to go to war. However, both were perjury. So please describe for us your indignation at the Clinton impeachment, and explain to us why perjury was not a serious enough crime to warrant such a response. I look forward to your reply.

Don Singleton said...

Okay, so I take you think Clinton's actions were perfectly correct, and that no travesty of justice occurred, right?

Not at all. What he did, with an intern, in the Oral Office, offended me a great deal. But he was not impeached for it.

Or rather, did you (rightly) scream like a stuck pig when Clinton pardoned Rich

I was not overjoyed about them, but I did not scream, because I knew he had the power.

Should all members of the executive branch be immune from prosecution? Or just from Republican administrations?

I do not support resorting to the legal system for political matters, and I believe both parties do it.

What did you think of the Clinton impeachment?

I was more offended at things he did, but was not impeached for, than what he was impeached for. Since there was no chance that he would be removed from office for either one, I believe that he should not have been impeached. It just gave the left the feeling they had to do it to the Republicans the first chance they got.

Andrew said...

Somebody wake me when the perpetual victimology of the Right finally ends.

You've the ethical consistency of a cobra, Don.

Paul said...

Not at all. What he did, with an intern, in the Oral Office, offended me a great deal. But he was not impeached for it.

Actually, I was referring to the pardon, not the blowjob. Extramarital sex is not against the law and not an impeachable offense, so impeaching him for that is a non-issue. Let's get back on track, shall we?

I do not support resorting to the legal system for political matters, and I believe both parties do it.

"Resorting to the legal system for political matters"? What on earth can that possibly mean?

You mean there should be no legal review of any act undertaken for political purpose? Please explain.

It just gave the left the feeling they had to do it to the Republicans the first chance they got.

So, you contend here that, because of the Clinton impeachment, the left then wanted to impeach Bush "the first chance they got." How, then, do you explain that the Democrats have had that chance since January and have not pursued it? Haven't they already had their first chance and passed it by?

On the other hand, many Americans want Bush impeached, to be sure, and not just on the left. Unfortunately, they're not in Congress. Do you believe this drive to impeach Bush is solely a reflection of what happened to Clinton, and the drive for revenge among Clinton's supporters?

Or do you believe there might be something more to impeaching Bush, completely irrespective of Clinton or anyone else, such as lying to start a war, breaking the FISA law, etc?

Don Singleton said...

How, then, do you explain that the Democrats have had that chance since January and have not pursued it?

Many of the nutroots have wanted to, and some congress critters have wanted to as well, but their leadership has been smart enough to realize that the Republicans began losing the center when they impeached Clinton, and they know they would lose the center as well if they tried to impeach Bush or Cheney, and that they would be equally unsuccessful.

Paul said...

Thanks for being so forthcoming, Don.

What about this one?
Do you believe this drive to impeach Bush is solely a reflection of what happened to Clinton, and the drive for revenge among Clinton's supporters?

Or do you believe there might be something more to impeaching Bush, completely irrespective of Clinton or anyone else, such as lying to start a war, breaking the FISA law, etc?

Don Singleton said...

Do you believe this drive to impeach Bush is solely a reflection of what happened to Clinton, and the drive for revenge among Clinton's supporters?

Absolutely. It has resulted in a total lack of decency in the way anyone in Washington treats anyone in the other party.

Or do you believe there might be something more to impeaching Bush, completely irrespective of Clinton or anyone else, such as lying to start a war,

I don't believe he lied. He was wrong, but so was Clinton and most of the Democrats that voted for war as well. Saying he lied either means you have fallen into the same hatred that I mentioned above, or you believe the rewritten history that some are pushing.

breaking the FISA law, etc?

Again I don't agree he broke the FISA law. If you read the law it says he can to to the secret court, it does not say he must, and a very good case can be made for the fact that since we are at war, the President's powers as commander in chief allow what he did.

Paul said...

Absolutely. It has resulted in a total lack of decency in the way anyone in Washington treats anyone in the other party.

Agreed. And that's why pardoning Libby would be the exact wrong thing to do. Libby was deeply engaged in the type of indecency you decry, and committed a crime in the process. (Remember, a jury of his peers decided it wasn't a problem with his memory.) Therefore, to pardon Libby condones this kind of behavior. Don, you need to decide if you're against this indecent behavior in principle, or just when it's against Republicans.

I don't believe he lied. He was wrong, but so was Clinton and most of the Democrats that voted for war as well.

The democrats who voted for the war were wrong. On the other hand, Bush lied. Congress was not given the same information that Bush/Cheney had, and therefore based their opinion on incomplete information. Moreover, in making so many pre-war claims that included the comment "there is no doubt that Saddam has WMDs", the Bush Administration did in fact lie under the strictest definition of the word.

Saying he lied either means you have fallen into the same hatred that I mentioned above, or you believe the rewritten history that some are pushing.

No. It means that I'm more aware of the facts than you are, and I know what the word "lie" means.

Again I don't agree he broke the FISA law. If you read the law it says he can to to the secret court, it does not say he must

Let me destroy that illusion right now. I'm not sure what source of disinformation filled your head with that nonsense, but I'm here to tell you, it ain't true. The FISA law is not optional. The FISA law was enacted particularly to reign in the executive branch's ability to snoop on Americans, as a direct response to Nixon's abuses. Please, read the bill yourself. You have been deeply misinformed.

Once you read the bill, you'll realize that not only has Bush violated the FISA law, he has admitted as much, and has committed a felony. No one contests this.

Here. The truth shall set you free.

Here's a shorter version.

FISA allows electronic surveillance under 2 conditions:

Without a court order, assuming you're only spying on foreign powers, and even then only up to one year. Bush has spied on millions of Americans for more than 5 years.

With a court order. Bush never got one.

Don Singleton said...

Libby was deeply engaged in the type of indecency you decry

I don't think he was. He was trying to set the record straight after a coup attempt on the part of individuals in the CIA. He knew he was not the one that first released the information (and the man who did release it was not prosecuted because the rabid left did not want his scalp), and he just did not remember correctly who he told when.

Moreover, in making so many pre-war claims that included the comment "there is no doubt that Saddam has WMDs", the Bush Administration did in fact lie under the strictest definition of the word.

Bill and Hiliary made similar statements. Did they also lie?

The FISA law was enacted particularly to reign in the executive branch's ability to snoop on Americans, as a direct response to Nixon's abuses

We were not at war then. We were when Bush used his power as Commander in Chief to obtain information to protect the country that had been attacked.