Juries and judges are so inconvenient.

Couldn't Scooter just write a check a year ago? Then we could have focused on the important issues, like how well the Surge is working.

George W. Bush said it best: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier..."

What is ridiculous about this whole business is that this the same thing that Republicans went crazy about when Clinton did it. For Clinton's lie, the House voted to impeach, and we had a trial before the Senate with the intent of removing the president from office. But when one of Bush's lackeys does it, it is to be minimized and forgiven. Redstate.com lauds the decision calling it, "an unsentenced conviction for a victimless crime."

I have heard quite a bit of this on the liberal legal blogs since the sentence was handed down: variations on the theme that Bush "could not" pardon Libby because it would cause, um, well, something to happen. Some sort of outcry or something. Exactly what this outcry was supposed to be, or how it would affect Bush, or why he would care was never specified.

And I have to say I just didn't see it then and I don't see it now. The traditional media is utterly, utterly cowed by the Bush Administration where it isn't outright owned by Radical Right interests. And even where it isn't, it doesn't care. Really. This is all "just politics" to the media; part of the he said/she said game that they provide commentary for.

And without media attention there is no understanding, no concern, and certainly no outrage among the general public. What we are seeing today is at least as bad, and perhaps worse, than Watergate and **the public neither knows nor cares**.

sPh

Idiots on Democratic websites also enjoy the "Clinton did it too" bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1231402&mesg_id=1231402

Limbaugh's site is still calling for a pardon. It hasn't been updated to crow about how the "libs" lost.

Another slight difference between Clinton and Libby: Libby was found guilty. Clinton was found not guilty, with 10 Republican Senators voting not guilty on perjury and 5 voting not guilty on obstruction of justice.

Does he get his $250G back when he's pardoned?

I hope you are being ironice b/c that's not a slight difference! That's a huge, massive ocean of a difference!!

Andrew,

When you say that the right will crow "Clinton did it!" Do you mean Clinton's white lie, or Clinton's pardons of people like Marc Rich?

I can't see equating lying about a personal matter that never should have been an issue to begin with and lying about spilling the identity of a covert CIA operative.

As for the pardon issue... guess I'm sanguine. The president always has the power and right to pardon anyone he wants to, or to commute any sentence they want.

That's just the system.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Thanks for the info!

But it's Ehud Barak (no c). Poor Obama gets enough grief with his name as it is...

My, how George Bush has Changed:

Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to "replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair"[2] (italics added). But new information about a mentally retarded man's battered, abused childhood that his jury never got to hear—wouldn't that qualify?

But then I guess there's a difference between commuting the death sentence of a mentally retarded man (and 151 others over whose executions he presided) to life in prison and commuting the sentence of a lackey, sycophant, and errand boy to zero days in prison.

And at his shoulder watching him spend an average of 30 minutes or less on each case, reading not the cases themselves, was none other than the person who wrote those summaries, our very fair, very upright, very impartial Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.  I wonder if Gonzales will rebuke Bush for being soft on crime.

aMike

It's not as if it were his money; it's coming out of that legal defense fund his friends and protectors had set up for him.

Difference is in the eye of the beholder. A poster named 'Neocon' sees the difference between Clinton and Libby testifying to a grand jury this way:

...Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY, UNDER OATH.

Libby got his dates crossed up under oath to a special prosecutor, who had, and still hasn't any intention of going after the real perpetrator, Richard Armitage.

Now we know.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken

All true SPHealey, but the key is who comments about it and how strong/strident they are in their protestations. You can count on the Democrats in Congress to produce tepid protestations that won't amount to a hill of beans and the punditocracy doesn't have enough common sense to understand how outrageous this move is nor enough brains to understand why it is so. However, I think the group to watch would be the legal profession, leading legal scholars and prosecutors in particular. How they react and how strongly is important and the corporate owned media knows it. It might be enough, if really pronounced, to actually produce an inkling of outrage in the general populace.

Nothing is going to happen. 

Maybe Bush's approval will fall a few more points.  He is only 4 points above Truman when he fired MacArthur, which is the basement since polling began.  Just for satisfaction, I would like to see Bush below that.

But, realistically, the last few points he has lost were on the right, not the left, so this could actually raise his approval.  Don't be surprised.

If this had happened before the '06 election, then there would be consequences, now it is nothing much.

The Dems big goals from now to 1/20/09 should be to stay out of Iran, get out of Iraq, undo what damage they can, block as many court appointments as they can, and win big in 08. 

I believe the thirty minutes cited was a gross exaggeration. I don't believe this man's attention span is even half of that.

Let me get this straight: Irving Libby is deserving of commutation, while Karla Faye Tucker is not? That's despite the fact that more people (MANY MORE PEOPLE) have died as a consequence of his actions than the two poor souls Tucker admitted to killing.

The public raised such a ruckus about what was allleged to be amnesty in the proposed immigration bill that the proposal went down in flames. Perhaps it was a reaction to that that caused Bush to give something approaching amnesty to Irving Libby.

Ahh, the freedom that already being recognized as the worst president in history affords Bush. What further harm could he do to his legacy? Short of being discovered in a love tryst with Barney, he's fallen about as low as he can go. So deal with it. Don't expect any better, because we'll only be disappointed.

As for Marc Rich - Ehud Barack had lobbied Clinton heavily for the pardon. Rich was deeply involved in providing money to build new housing (I believe but I could have the specific use of the funds wrong) for the Palestinians in the West Bank, and Barack felt that he was absolutely essential to the peace process.

Oh please.

Here's what Barak said when he first brought up Rich with Clinton in a phone call:

Okay, thank you. One last remark. There is an American Jewish businessman living in Switzerland and making a lot of philanthropic contributions to Israeli institutions and activities like education, and he is a man called Mark [sic] Rich. He violated certain rules of the game in the United States and is living abroad. I just wanted to let you know that here he is highly appreciated for his support of so many philanthropic institutions and funds, and that if I can, I would like to make my recommendation to consider his case.

In a later call, Barak also mentioned how Rich had been very helpful to the Mossad on more than one occasion. There were three calls, and Barak never makes the absurd claim that Rich was "essential to the peace process."

The notion that Rich was a factor in the peace process appears to go back to 1995. Rich, increasingly anxious for help with his legal problems, began throwing money around in order to win more friends and influence people. At some point, he offered Israel 500K for use of some unspecified kind in the peace process, but made it clear that he couldn't do it unless he got some help with his legal problems. The Israelis thus took the Rich matter up with the State Department. It went nowhere.

The Burton committee's summary and plausible conclusion about this:

Also noteworthy is the fact that this brief effort in 1995 appears to be the only time that Marc Rich’s name came up in the context of the Middle East peace talks. To the extent that Rich’s name came up, it appears to have been a minor matter that never had any impact on the Middle East peace talks. Dennis Ross, the Clinton Administration’s Middle East envoy, has stated that Marc Rich “was not a factor in the Middle East talks.” The fact that Marc Rich was never a factor in the peace talks, either in 1995 or in 2000, suggests that President Clinton’s key justification for the pardon – that it was important to Israel – is an after-the- fact excuse that the President has put forward to cover up other motivations for the pardon.

In the end, Barak didn't lobby very hard for Rich at all. Rich came up briefly in three phone calls, and in the third Clinton is the one who brought it up. The heavy lobbying came from elsewhere, and it had nothing at all to do with the peace process.

The Rich pardon is just a classic Washington case of exchange of favors, and cultivation of influence by financial means. The Marc Rich Foundation, managed by Avner Azulay, a former Mossad agent, gave boatloads of money to Israeli and Jewish causes over the years, and also helped out the Israeli government. And as a result of all that largesse, Rich made a lot of very important friends over the years, and they in turn organized a campaign to lobby for his pardon, spearheaded by Denise Rich who also chipped in with a donation to the Clinton library.

Now some of the help Rich gave the Mossad, according to Clinton, was in "efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries." We don't know which Jews or which hostile circumstances, or under what conditions. But let's just take this claim at face value, and in the most charitable way. Some innocent Jews were in some tough scrapes in hostile countries, and Rich helped the Mossad get them out. Well good for the Mossad, then, and good for Rich for helping.

It would be better and more straightforward if Clinton just said, "Look, Marc Rich is a crook, but he also helped some people get out of dangerous situations and has given a lot of money to Israeli and Jewish causes. So this is his reward."

[edit] Is there an echo in here? :-)

The Texas thing was different. Jeb and Dubya were going for, and achieved in slam dunk fashion, the national record for most executions by two brothers serving as governors.

Bush and Gonzales could probably rubber stamp 30 executions in 30 minutes.

Hoppy, I agree with you 99% of the time, but this time I don't.  The reason to impeach is because Cheney/Bush have committed high crimes and misdemeanors.  If nothing happens other than Americans seeing this Impeachment and so are exposed to the truth then so be it.

If enough senators, after seeing and hearing evidence, won't convict (which is not certain after all the dirty facts are available) then at least the American public will have seen it, 

This is the same public that believes Saddam Hussain was behind 911; who believe WMD's were found in Iraq; who don't believe in evolution ---->  It is time to AT LEAST make the truth available! 

It is time to call this regime to account, and the only respectable way to do it is legally.  The evidence is everywhere, and the only reason it has not already happened is because they ironically raised the bar by having such a ridiculous impeachment against Clinton.  Everything after that fiasco they call payback. Too  bad.  It is time to revert to the rule of law.

Jan

Yes, I am not necessarily in favor of impeachment, as I think the ramifications are somewhat unpredictable and the media will all cry overreach, but I do think that only impeachment would send a message that should be sent to the American people:

namely, that what is happening today and what the Bush/Cheney Administration has done is different in kind, not degree, from how the government should properly operate.

I think all the Democrats should pledge to release all Bush/Cheney records not involving the absolutely most essential national security issues immediately upon taking office. Illegal activities such as torture/secret prisons/warrantless wiretapping would not be held back.

Only then can we start to put the pieces back together again. Without extreme openness and sunlight to disinfect the Bush years, it's going to take ages to remedy all of the mischief they have created.

Scooter Libby does not have to worry about paying the $250,000 fine; Cheney can have that paid for him without blinking. Very likely the decision by Bush to commute the prison term was also requested (read; ordered) by Cheney to keep Libby silent. The complexus of interests that have brought about 9/11, the war in Iraq and are seeking a war with Iran are very clearly known by serious students of this whole ghastly scenario and the American (MSM-main stream media) is owned by that complexus of interests and is its mouthpiece.

The three branches of our government have all been severely compromised, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The military has been badly misused and abused and the main stream media blesses it all.

So what is left? People who know and can see what is going on and can think a clear thought and write or speak a clear sentence can still do that. The millions upon millions of dollars raised for the candidates will be spent where and with what result? Politics as usual supporting corrupt and destructive myths has gotten us into this crisis; politics as usual will not get us out.

The brilliance and the genius that crafted our American form of government, the Constitution, still exists among all of those who truly understand its significance. From The World Book Encyclopedia, edition of 1954, in the article on CONSTITUTION: "A constitution is not a guarantee that democratic processes will continue. In many countries, dictators have come to power by legal means and have set aside the constitution. The strength of a consitution depends on the willingness and power of the people to support it."

I know. Just a lame joke. It does kind of negate the argument that he's not getting off Scott free because he has to pay this huge fine. I have no doubt these guys will all come out much richer in the end. Cheney's Halliburton options (story #24) increased in value "from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005" (3000%). No conflict there. "I'm not a crook."

the obligatory clinton comparisons and all the excuses and lies are being broadcast into the ears of tens of millions of americans over the talk radio monopoly once again.

libby, bush, chenney wouldn't have a chance except for that monopoly and the uncontested repetition it uses to create a giant bandwagon the MSM talking heads need to sell their irrational and hypcritical drivel.

only when that monopoy is limited or some new fairness docrine is passed will we have any kind of real democracy again.

KaLo and the rest of the Neo--Fascists at the Corner will squeal like pigs, and spin so fast, they’ll affect the earth’s rotation.

It is amazing that they have not been shamed into silence-- constant propaganda that at its core is against the rule of law, democracy, the Constitution and American international and security interests.

Even Mussolini would winch at their brazen and shameful corruption.

The actual committee report, which is documented with witness testimony, official documents and news reports.

Who gives a rats ass. The right wing said that the Marc Rich pardon was a disgrace.

But they're okay with this? They're whores.

Ok people, it appears the point for Bush and Cheney to resign over this latest outrage.

We can get them to resign with a peaceful action. Who
appears more vulnerable to public outrage and opinion
than the contributors to the Republican party, who sell
consumer items?

General Electric appears one of these contributors to the
Republican party. Call General Electric at 203 373 2211
and tell the person you want the public relations
department.

Tell the public relations person that you want the GE
CEO to get Bush and Cheney to resign and until this
occurs you will no longer buy any General Electric
products.

When friends of the Republican party lose our business,
they will have to get the Republican party to act.

You can change America today! Go to http://dmocrats.org and look for the statement with the title Send this letter to congress today!

From liar "Redstate" --

"Now, we get to hear what Hillary Clinton thinks about the proper uses of the pardon power."

First, Libby was not pardoned; part of his sentence was cummuted. They are not the same thing. But what Bushit did is similar to one of Clinton's pardons -- that of Marc Rich:

Despite the right-wing/nut lies at the time, Rich was not given a full pardon. Rather, the bogus criminal charges were pardoned, but it required Rich to make more restrictive -- on him -- agreement concerning the civil charges.

The lawyer who lobbied Clinton for the Marc Rich pardon was: "Scooter" Libby. Were the extremist right-wing/nut liars not hypocrites, they would demand that Bushit revoke his commutation of Libby's sentence, on the grounds that Libby successfully helped "major international crime figure" Marc Rich "beat the rap".

Perhaps as we learn the fuller details, we'll discover that Bushit commuted Libby's jail-time because lobbied to do so by Marc Rich.

"On July 2, 2007 - 7:14pm chimp said:

"Conyers says he will have a hearing this week. I wonder if congress is going to hear outcry and respond - calls for impeaching Cheney? Scooter could still be called, as the entire grand jury and trial would be fair game then. I just can't see how Pelosi can stick to her guns keeping it off the table when every move congress attempts to make in exercising its authority is met by contemptuous dares to cross the line."

You have an awareness of ethics equal to that of Bushit, et al., and the Republicans.

Get it through your head: Pelosi is third in line for the presidency. It would be UNETHICAL (and stupid) for her to initiate impeachment. And if she were to, she should be the LAST person to do so.

The ultimate check on go'vt is We the people. It is _our responsibility_ to demand impeachment -- not for Congress to initiate it on its own. To do the latter would be an abuse of power -- and seen as partisan.

Are you for democratic due process of law, in accordance with the Constitution? Or are you for "winning" without regard for the means?

"On July 2, 2007 - 7:25pm Don Key said:

"Does he get his $250G back when he's pardoned?"

Don't ya just hate it when critics of the inaccurate are themselves inaccurate?

Libby was not pardoned. Part of his sentence was commuted

MORE FUN FROM REDSTATE

Commenter "Tbone" says, "Obama is can be certified as an imbecile and a discredit to his race along with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The Fool speaks. President? No, Lackey of the Left." (my emphasis)

Then there's a little bit of self-pwnage in a short 3 comment exchange:

Cristobalcolon says, "the breakdown of the 38% who agree goes like this: 17% agree with the decision as it was, and 21% wanted Libby pardoned completely."

Tbone responds, "I just love these "Who's an idiot" type polls. 38% is about the percentage of hardcore idiot Democrats in this country so it figures."

stlatty1972 corrects him, "In this case, the 38% appear to support the Bush decision...and are probably Repub's."

I love this little bit from commenter "mbecker908." Throughout their main thread on this, he is trying to maintain that Clinton's impeachment for perjury was justified while Libby basically didn't do anything. His reasons range from Libby didn't lie to he should never have been questions to even if he did lie it wasn't that bad to why would he even lie in the first place? Anyway, here he again tries to distinguish between Libby and Clinton:

The circumstances of Clinton's perjury charge and Libby's are entirely different. Go read up on it. Take your sweet time. . . . The issue here . . . is one of a special prosecutor run amok and whether a charge should have ever been brought. Again, read up on the case.

Ken Starr anyone? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ken Starr supposed to investigate the Whitewater scandal, but when Monica came up, he jumped all over that, didn't he. Special prosecutor run amok, my ass.

So, good times from our friends on the right.

I think that just means the President can't use a pardon to overturn an impeachment. A criminal conviction is separate from impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

For example, even if Nixon had been impeached and removed from office, Ford could still have pardoned him on any potential criminal charges; he just couldn't have overturned the impeachment (which could have included disqualification to hold any future office).

If this doesn't bring Cheney--> Bush down finally, nothing will.

Yeah, well, well what about Clinton, huh? huh?

No one ever talks about him!!!

Look, isn't it enough to focus on how slimy the Libby commutation is without doing all this ridiculous water-carrying for Clinton. Surely it is not just a question of how high-ranking the person is in the government, but how serious the crimes. Marc Rich was the most vigorously pursued white collar criminal in US history - much of that pursuit by Clinton's own justice department - and with very good reason.

if only Bush had spoken more clearly we all could have known this before 2000. he meant he was compassionate TO conservatives.

"It needs to be emphasized that he served the entire sentence on child abuse charges in federal prison as well as most of the sentence for fraud, and even after commutation remained under the control of the prison system until his entire sentence was served."

No it doesn't. In fact, this is exactly what the hypocrites want you to do--get mired down in a debate about specifics.

The simplest way to respond to "Clinton did it!" isn't with facts, figures and links. The simplest way to respond to it is with the phrase, "Whoa, wait...are you saying that makes it OK? I didn't know you thought that highly of Mr. Clinton. Personally, I feel it's a perversion of justice no matter who does it."

When you do this you demonstrate to other observers in the forum that you're against scandalous behavior and your opponent is for it. After using him as a punching bag for several rounds of this and firming up the idea that he supports crooked politics, then you bring out the "By the way, I looked into that Clinton thing, and guess what?" TKO.

Tanj, I think your last paragraph nails the real issue here.

Are you stupid?  Do you understand how impeachment works?

An impeachment would have everybody's attention. Kinda like the Iraq war has finally got to. Does anybody think any Repub could sit there and vote "no" if even half the evidence is repeated hourly on CNN the way it was during the last two brushes in this area? Voting against impeaching Bush would be suicide.

Let's be clear about the difference between a pardon in a criminal situation, and a cover-your-a*s pardon.

The underlying issue in the Libby case is the run-up to the Iraq war. Lot's of people in the administration exaggerated, threatened, dissembled and even told lies to the American people, and this enabled the US attack on Iraq. Libby knows all of the details, and if he were to talk about all of this for fear of doing real jail time, it would be disasterous to many many people in the administration.

That's why, we all knew, Libby was promised a pardon early in this whole investigation. I don't like it, but I see no reason to complain. In this case, Bush is well within his power as President of the United States.