Bush Assaults Rule of Law to Save Libby

"The true saint is the person who whips and kills the people for the good of the people."

-Charles Baudelaire

It is tempting to view the commutation of prison time for Lewis Libby, the disgraced White House aide convicted of lying and obstructing justice, as another instance of craven hypocrisy by President Bush. As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," unless "new facts" arose or the trial was "unfair" -- a standard which the Libby case clearly fails.

Or perhaps the commutation will serve as a disturbing reminder of how the administration regularly lies with impunity in Washington. President Bush famously promised, in serious tones at a televised White House meeting, to both fire and punish anyone involved in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Instead, he retained all the senior officials embroiled in the scandal, even after their roles were exposed in trial testimony and news reports, with no visible consequences. Now the President is using his clemency power to protect the one official convicted on related crimes. In his surreal statement about that choice, Bush volunteered his belief that "if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."

But it would be wrong to criticize Bush's decision as one more hypocritical or deceitful maneuver, because it is actually far more profound.

The commutation of the 30-month prison sentence for Lewis Libby, the highest-ranking White House official convicted of a felony since Iran-Contra, fits into a larger, systemic assault on American rule of law by the Bush Administration.

In fact, Libby's special treatment is a microcosm of current U.S. policy. Libby is basically receiving a post-conviction protection that the Bush Administration now routinely extends to many potential criminals in the U.S. government. The administration successfully pushed legislation last year granting immunity to officials who might someday be prosecuted for war crimes or torture. It is a policy that embodies the administration's distinctly un-American view that powerful government officials should operate above the law.

The same legislation, the Military Commissions Act, strips constitutional rights and habeas corpus in a direct attack on the protections that have grounded the rule of law in America since its founding, 231 years ago this week. The unconstitutional act, like the administration's illegal detention, torture, spying and secret prisons, will continue as long as the federal courts ignore the administration's criminal conduct in deference to claims of executive authority in the Global War on Terror.

Even when the courts have confronted Bush's assault on the rule of law -- overruling detention policies in two cases and one spying lawsuit -- the administration has stayed or circumvented the rulings, shielded law-breakers within the U.S. government, or simply lied by claiming all of its activities, including those found unconstitutional by U.S. courts, are legal. When pressed on illegal torture techniques, for example, Bush made the Nixonian declaration that "whatever we have done is legal." Then there is the slew of rear-guard actions that the administration uses to subvert the law and our democratic process. These include extreme secrecy, defying congressional subpoenas, extralegal signing statements and unprecedented assertions of the "state secrets privilege" - a courtroom tactic where the administration literally tells judges that cases should not proceed because they might jeopardize "state secrets." (It often works.)

The administration defends this assault on the rule of law as vital to defending the homeland. If anything, the most vocal Bush supporters are proud of their zeal to commit crimes that supposedly advance national security. The Republicans running to replace Bush frequently tout their willingness to whip the people for the good of the people, as Baudelaire would say, while Bush's leading Democratic opponents have rarely tackled these issues head on. (Kerry "rarely" mentioned torture in the 2004 campaign, since Democrats generally thought human rights were "political suicide" after 9/11, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole argues in the new NYRB.)

Of course, Libby can't even claim a "trade-off" between law and security. He lied to FBI agents to cover up the outing of a CIA agent that compromised national security. The motivation for the leak was a potentially illegal hit job to discredit American citizens who had served in the U.S. government. It was as dirty and petty as Watergate, except this time the crooks broke into their own files to attack opponents.

Since the Libby commutation is part of a much broader problem, the President's opponents cannot afford to simply criticize it in isolation. They have a duty to outline an alternative agenda that prioritizes the rehabilitation of the rule of law. Which candidates will commit to rolling back the legislative immunity for war criminals? Who will commit to confronting every official responsible for mishandling classified information (including Libby and Cheney), practicing torture and illegally spying on American citizens? Who will pursue investigations now -- not "if elected" -- to follow the horrors of Abu Ghraib up the chain of command, past the Taguba Report, however high they go?

That is the surest way to begin rescuing the rule of law in this country and restore the public trust. Because as Americans gather for July 4th celebrations, talk will likely turn to two convicted criminals who embody Bush's approach to the rule of law: Lewis Libby and Paris Hilton. So powerful and rich, they can live above the law, and they make no apologies for it. Americans overwhelmingly opposed a pardon for Libby, and initial polling suggests they oppose the commutation. The question for politicians is not whether they agree with the public on this fundamental matter of law and order, but what are they going to do about it?

UPDATE: Blogger and author Marcy Wheeler argues that Bush's preference for commutation instead of a pardon is also designed to subvert the rule of law. "He commuted Libby's sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn't talk, but retaining Libby's right to invoke the Fifth," she writes. For congressional responses, blogger Phoenix Woman notes that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers is expected to hold hearings on the commutation next week.

Comments (70)

1. The question for politicians is not whether they agree with the public on this fundamental matter of law and order, but what are they going to do about it?

   That's what I want to know! What are they going to do about it?

   The Democrats need to stop taking it lying down or bent over and start using their new found power to "control" the agenda to expose the Republicans as the lawless gang of thugs who only want to help their friends get rich at everyone else's expense.

   If you control the agenda, why not offer a Constitutional Amendment to restrict a president's power to pardon those that are part of his or her administration? Sure, the Republicans will filibuster or Bush will veto it, but it gives you more ammunition for the campaign ads in '08. In fact for every issue that the public supports but is opposed by the Republicans, meaningful reforms should be pushed through the Senate and the House by the Democrats to demonstrate that "they" are not the problem.

   Same thing with "real" campaign finance reform - propose the legislation, let them filibuster or veto it and then use it against them in '08 TV ads. The Democrats need to be far more aggressive than they have been in the past in putting forward "their" solutions so it is clear who is the problem.

   Simply sitting back and riding public sentiment is a waste unless you convert it to real political advantage.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 01:47am

2. Why stop there -- bring up articles of impeachment against Frito, cHeney, then hsuB and let the repubs filabuster it explaining how new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy are above the law.

   It is way more than obvious hsuB/cHeney are obstructing justice and made a deal with Libby, no jail time for Libby-- and he just has to lie to keep hsuB/cHeney from the gallos for treason:

   WASHINGTON - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used his opening statement in the CIA leak trial Tuesday to allege that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff lied and destroyed a note showing Cheney's early involvement.

   Fitzgerald said Cheney told his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, in 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

   "But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did," Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."

   Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 "destroyed" a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.

   Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went to Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

   "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 02:33am

3. I hate to be too hard on you guys, wait a minute, I do want to be extremely hard on you guys. What is it you people don't get? Democrats will do nothing about this because they themselves do not believe in the rule of law. They fought against the Clinton impeachment claiming it was about nothing but sex. Well, they were wrong then just as the rightwing fanatics are wrong now in their crying for Libby to be pardoned. Clinton should have been impeached for being a MORON. Of all the things that one could and would lie about, having sex with an intern? Puleez. No one who fought against the Clinton impeachment and for the Clinton end of term pardons can whine about the Lewis Libby Commuation. Until one side commits to the rule of law then neither side will ever commit to the rule of law............

   Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 01:47am | ignore this person

   Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/03/2007 @ 02:33am | ignore this person

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 04:35am

4. I hate to be too hard on you guys, wait a minute, I do want to be extremely hard on you guys. What is it you people don't get? Democrats will do nothing about this because they themselves do not believe in the rule of law. They fought against the Clinton impeachment claiming it was about nothing but sex. Well, they were wrong then just as the rightwing fanatics are wrong now in their crying for Libby to be pardoned. Clinton should have been impeached for being a MORON. Of all the things that one could and would lie about, having sex with an intern? Puleez. The GOP set Clinton up beautifully because they knew he would try and lie his way out of it, hence, the perjury and obstruction of justice charges. No one who fought against the Clinton impeachment and for the Clinton end of term pardons can whine about the Lewis Libby Commuation. Until one side commits to the rule of law then neither side will ever commit to the rule of law............

   Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 01:47am | ignore this person

   Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/03/2007 @ 02:33am | ignore this person

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 04:37am

5. Stop wasting your time folks waiting for the Democrats to flex their power and reign in the Bush White House. The Democrats have EMPLOYED THE FOLLOWING STRATAGERY:(LOL)

   They will allow Bush and Cheney to do absolutely ANYTHING they wish to do that is controversial, shady, and downright illegal. Democrats have taken the cynical political position that by the time 2008 rolls around the public will be so fed-up with Bush and his cronyism and disregard for the rule of law that they can win another election cycle based on Bush's bad poll numbers and unfavorability. AND NOT THROUGH ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT THAT THEY HAVE DONE OR WILL DO...........A repeat of their strategy in 2006, WE (DEMOCRATS) WILL SUPPLY THEM (GOP) WITH ALL THE ROPE THEY WANT AND WITH IT HOPE THAT THE REPUBLICANS HANG THEMSELVES...........

   Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 01:47am | ignore this person

   Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/03/2007 @ 02:33am | ignore this person

   Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 05:02am

6. Hmmm...Wasn't it Bush who said awhile back to the press that if anyone in his admin was breaking the law, that he would hold them personably accountable ???

   Posted by djmarch at 07/03/2007 @ 07:11am

7. This proves Libby certainly must know where the dead bodies are buried. America is awakening to the fact we have a dictatorship. As an American citizen, we have to attack this at a grass roots level. Since most of our media is controlled, we definitely have to learn to communicate on a one to one level. The internet is the best vehicle for communication right now.The Congress certainly will not address the issues much less take any stand or action to remedy the situation. They are waiting for 2008 and it will be too late for them.

   Posted by Sinatra at 07/03/2007 @ 08:15am

8. Posted by POSEIDON 07/03/2007 @ 05:02am

   Pose,

   You're a servicer of dic'tator philosophy or you're against new con dic'tator philosophy. Face it Pose, you're over your head on this, drowning in a cesspool along with the rest of repub coolaid drinkers that follow this hsuB/cHeney admin like limmings over the cliff.

   hsuB is a criminal covering up a crime laced with the death of thousands of our sons and daughters, 100's of thousands of Iraqis and filled with billions of stolen US citizenry taxes. hsuB 'is' the worst president in our US history. It will be a joy to finally see him get his just rewards via impeachment, disgrace and real jail time. He has willing committed crimes. His dumb-ass act isn't going to stop him from settling up for the shit he's put this nation through. I say, he can commute Libby's sentence-- he can't commute his own.

   I say, Biden, not only will hsuB get millions of letters of protest, so will the congress. Congress must do it's job and impeach the scum currently sliming our WH. It's the right thing to do-- now.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 08:54am

9. er, willingly

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 08:56am

10. It's quite obvious that most of the people who still support Bush are the ones who lack morality and don't mind this type of behavior.Obviously,Bush lied about his reasons for the commutation and we won't see others with the same sentence being set free.Bush supporters know he lied about why he commuted the sentence, know he did this as part of an agreement with Libby to keep him from putting on a defense,know this is a cover up,but don't care because that's who they are.The amoral minority.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 09:16am

11. Now lets discuss the list of Carter and Cinton Commutes and Pardons, or rather let us listen to the leftwingnuts rationalizations and spinning hypocrisy as usual!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/02/2007 @ 11:24pm | ignore this person

    what he actually said was that he would take care of them. and yes, he has kept his word.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 09:18am

12. He got it right:

    "The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 09:53am

13. Bush is America, America is Bush.

    Bush is the Law above all other Law and the Constitution.

    As Long as Bush is dictator, we have no protection or legal recourse. We are all subject to his whims.

    Democratic leaders are too stupid to realize there only two ways to get rid of a dictator. One of them is Impeachment. . .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 07/03/2007 @ 10:01am

14. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections" George W. Bush

    Ergo, don't expect any further accountability from the Bush administration.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/03/2007 @ 10:11am

15. ....don't expect any further accountability from the Bush administration.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 07/03/2007 @ 10:11am

    Entirely UNTRUE!! Everyday since Jan. 2001, Bush has been held accountable! Yesterday, he gets credit for the stock market rising by 1.1%! Today, we'll see!

    Overall since his Presidency, I am more than HAPPY! Those of you too busy bitching and moaning, like JM said, have missed the greatest period of sustained economic and financial market prosperity in your working lifetime. But quick, you might still have about 18 months left to get on the train! IF you get your wish of an All-Dem Gov't, near-certain train wreck ahead!! Me, I'll be off the train long before!!

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 10:46am

16. Overall since his Presidency, I am more than HAPPY!

    Posted by HAPPY 07/03/2007 @ 10:46am

    You are more than happy, you are downright fucking DELUSIONAL.

    Rotten to the core, every last stinking one of them.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 10:48am

17. Happy-At least,you admit that you don't care about all the death and destruction,crimes etc. as long as you can make a buck off of it.You do realize,of course,that happy braggarts who live for money don't exist.If you go to a large AA meeting you'll meet many former happy braggarts who lived for money.They're quite common at AA meetings.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 11:26am

18. The first step is admitting the problem, and they are completely incapable of doing so. He is just another Happy Idiot, watching our country go down the tubes, and greedily fingering his stack of cash.

    All that money won't be worth a bucket of warm spit when the ChiComms come to collect....

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 11:28am

19. Dr.D-The problem is that their money doesn't make them happy like they thought it would so he comes on here hoping that bragging about his money will make him happy,but it doesn't,but he hopelessly keeps bragging any way.Business people are one of the biggest groups that end up on drugs and alcohol for obvious reasons.Money doesn't create happiness.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 11:36am

20. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 11:36am

    BJ's create happiness, and impeachment.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 11:38am

21. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 11:26am

    The ONLY sure way to solve most social problems is economic growth! All else is redistributionist, racial & class divisive BS! Great for pols to lead the ignorant and envious!

    Just pay attention to China while it goes through its 3rd decade of ~10% annual growth....and other fast-growing India....and Poland.....and Brazil.....and Vietnam....and South Africa.....

    At the same time, pay some attention to Zambabwe, Venezuela, Iran....as their centralized economies head south!

    I make no bones about it! My role is to allocate capital and make a profit doing so! Thank you very much!

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 11:40am

22. Posted by HAPPY

    You greedy, ignorant simpleton. I can only hope you some day fall victim to the blatant injustice you so obviously endorse. You want to see some "excessive" penalties imposed on defendants in a federal court? Just go and watch any conspiracy case, and see for yourself how it works. There is no "rule of law" in this country. If you have the right friends, the right connections, the rules do not apply; and if you are without friends and connections, then you can easily be convicted for something you didn't do and receive a draconian sentence.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 11:40am

23. Money doesn't create happiness.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 11:36am

    Not entirely true! For the mentally astute, the creation of added wealth, and in term, jobs for others, is a high; far better than the (mild) drugs of my youth!

    For the Left-Libs, the spreading of others' money, surely give you HAPPINESS, NO?

    Incidentally, when capitalist like me have good years, we tend to spend liberally....like ski at Lake Tahoe...providing jobs to mucho, mucho service sector workers. I know when I don't do as well, I tend to stick closer to home and of course, spend less `fun' money. The fact is the upper-middle and upper income class have the discretionary income way above and beyond the basic necessities. We don't spend it generously, many of you won't have a job! That's life! No hypocracy here! My capital create jobs and make companies more efficient.

    What does your bitching and moaning create?

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 11:48am

24. They can call it a "commutation" - they called Bush v Gore a "7 to 2" decision. Nobody calls Bush v Gore "7 to 2" anymore, because people can go read the decision itself! 4 justices concurring with the dissent on a 9 judge court does not add up to 7-2. History textbooks arent talking about "commutation". Nobody is going to alter every history textbook to add the word "commutation" wherever there is a paragraph talking about Presidential pardons.

    Posted by conshame at 07/03/2007 @ 11:49am

25. My role is to allocate capital and make a profit doing so! Posted by HAPPY 07/03/2007 @ 11:40am | ignore this person

    A Republican Conservative on a message board pretending he is independently wealthy. You dont "allocate" jack shhit, the only profit you make is off your wages, and you know it.

    Posted by conshame at 07/03/2007 @ 11:53am

26. Happy's Role = Happy's JOB

    Posted by conshame at 07/03/2007 @ 11:54am

27. Yeah, the fool is a real philantropist. His kind takes part in financing the off shoring of jobs and then tell all those that suffer as a result they should be happy that he helps the service sector. I only hope he get what's coming to him some day--him or a family member.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 11:58am

28. Happy-You're only conning yourself with your claims of happiness.I know you feel that you're important because you think you create jobs etc,but in reality you are no more important than anyone else and you create nothing.The bitching and moaning thing you included was expected from your immature self,but that's you.Are you capable of a response that doesn't include bragging and claims of self importance?If you were important you wouldn't be posting in the peanut gallery.You post here because,like me,you are a nobody.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 12:00pm

29. I only hope he get what's coming to him some day--him or a family member.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/03/2007 @ 11:58am

    When the ChiComms come to collect, HAPPY will be crying the loudest. What a fucking moron. When I see him begging alongside the freeway, he'll get that bucket of warm spit for his troubles.

    Just another capitalist pig.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 12:02pm

30. Wrong again Happy. The longest largest economic growth during my life occurred under Bill Clinton, who should have his impeachment withdrawn by chimpy.

    You have been pegged as a greedy bastard here Happy, with good cause. I am sure the child slave in China don't have your same enthusiasm for 10% annual growth on their backs. You give conservatism a bad smell. Just like ChimpCo.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2007 @ 12:03pm

31. Too bad the only real con in the race will have to be put to death by the evangelicals for his whoring ways.

    Remember, no beardless women allowed at public stonings.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2007 @ 12:05pm

32. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 11:36am

    And, as far as economic growth is concerned, I'll take the Clinton years over the Bush years. Happy crows about solving social problems with economic growth? What social problems are solved when the ChimpCo reign adds millions of Americans into the poverty class?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

33. While totally expected, the hyperbole and lies of the left over the Libby matter are laughable (kudos to Happy).

    Libby never outed Valerie Plame. The man who admitted long before there was an indictment of Libby was Richard Armitage; he has never been indicted.

    This entire episode has been just another left-wing witchunt. A small segment of our society, aided and abetted by a leftwing media and power-hungry Democrats who care neither for law or truth has been engaged in a war against conservatives in this country. A truly misguided effort when we see the true enemy of radical Islam remains a serious threat to freedom

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

34. antiliberal-A left wing witch hunt that was started by Bush and investigated by a very non partisan prosecutor?Was that supposed to make sense or was it the best excuse you could come up with for being soft on crime?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 12:16pm

35. Happy's Role = Happy's JOB

    Posted by CONSHAME 07/03/2007 @ 11:54am

    I already said what my "job" is! Give you a taste of my "job" yesterday:

    - Sold some Intel stock bought for $20 (about a year ago) and sold for $24.20!

    - Bought some LSI Corp. stock for ~$7.50 (it's another chipmaker close to 5-yr low, no debt w/IMO, good prospect for making a comeback)

    - Put in a couple of other buy/sell orders that did NOT hit prices I set!

    - Updated my portfolio to reflect several dividends and reinvestements.

    - Debated (w/myself) as to what to do, if anything, with my Fidelity Japan fund which hit a 52-week high and thought of what's going to happen w/the Yen/Dollar relationship

    - Check out the "action" here!

    - Replaced a set of drapes at a just-vacated rental property.

    I love my "Job"!

    BTW, back at Corn.com, I put out a couple of buy/sell signals, just for kicks.....if any of those Cornuts `listened', they would have made some good % money in oil stocks!

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 12:20pm

36. NathanHale-Happy types don't care about social problems.They create social problems.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 12:20pm

37. This entire episode has been just another left-wing witchunt. A small segment of our society, aided and abetted by a leftwing media and power-hungry Democrats who care neither for law or truth has been engaged in a war against conservatives in this country. A truly misguided effort when we see the true enemy of radical Islam remains a serious threat to freedom

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

    Um, dipshit, it was Republican appointed Prosecutors and Judges who handled this trial.

    After you pull your head out of your enormous ass, would you care to try again, this time with facts?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 12:28pm

38. Dr, very true, if a bit too scatalogical.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 12:33pm

39. Nazi propagandists in the corporate media - including Imus' replacement - have been as quick as their brainwashed followers on this blog to compare Bush Jr.'s cover-up of treason with Billy Clinton's refusal to volunteer information about a personal matter that had nothing to do with any crime.

    Bush Jr. should be impeached for treason, as defined by our Constitution. His accomplices should be prosecuted for treason, as defined by our federal statute law. The case against Billy Clinton, by contrast, was the result of an 'investigation' that was nothing but a political fishing trip with our tax dollars as bait - an 'investigation,' supposedly of Whitewater, that turned up not a scrap of evidence against either Clinton.

    Posted by samcrossett at 07/03/2007 @ 12:40pm

40. antiliberal-A left wing witch hunt that was started by Bush and investigated by a very non partisan prosecutor?Was that supposed to make sense or was it the best excuse you could come up with for being soft on crime?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 12:16pm

    After you pull your head out of your enormous ass, would you care to try again, this time with facts?

    Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/03/2007 @ 12:28pm

    Your comments merely reinforce my point. Investigations are started constantly by local, state, and Federal prosecutors. A great many never even come to indictment. This should have been one of those cases. Long before Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury, Fitzgerald already knew from Armitage that he was the source of the "so-called" leak. That he chose not to indict Armitage or Novak for that matter and persisted against Libby, made it suspect as being pressured by the partisans in and outside of Congress.

    Lastly, I direct the attention of you Bush haters to Bill Clinton's statement regarding pardons and commutations that he made.

    February 18, 2001

    My Reasons for the Pardons

    By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

    HAPPAQUA, N.Y. -- Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

    First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

    The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.

    On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.

    Bill Clinton on Pardons [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 12:49pm

41. antiliberal-Clinton has no relevance to this issue.You already showed how uninformed you are by claiming this had something to do with the left wing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 12:51pm

42. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 12:49pm

    Fuck you. I'm tired of trying to be nice to morons. There is no comparison. Libby is a traitor, and bush is in fear of him revealing the dirty laundry.

    All traitors should hang.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 12:53pm

43. antiliberal-The reason Libby put on no real defense is because he was promised this if he kept his mouth shut.Your post about other presidents had no relevance unless you can show that they were doing that as part of a cover up.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 12:55pm

44. Fuck you.Dr, I'm tired of trying to be nice to morons, ignored

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 12:56pm

45. Fuck you.Dr, I'm tired of trying to be nice to morons, ignored

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/03/2007 @ 12:56pm

    Whatever. The comment wasn't directed to you, but if you insist on trying to be my Mommy and Daddy, and lecture me, please do ignore me for christs sake.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 1:01pm

46. Supercilous holier than thow asshole.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 1:02pm

47. antiliberal-Clinton has no relevance to this issue.You already showed how uninformed you are by claiming this had something to do with the left wing.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 12:51pm

    IM,

    You simply demonstrate that facts have no relevance in your opinion. You dismiss Clinton's admiitedly well written explanation for a President to issue commutation or pardon and claim it has no relevance. You don't attempt to define why it has no relevance, you simply dismiss it because it doesn't support your opinion.

    Even Clinton's citation as to Supreme Court ruling on the issue has no influence for you because it doesn't support your bias.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 1:28pm

48. Billy Clinton's defense of presidential pardoning powers is certainly relevant - but not nearly as relevant as a similar apologia (if one exists) by Bush Sr. of his pardons for co-conspirators in Iran-Contra.

    The difference here is that most presidents, like Washington, Harding, and yes, Clinton, pardon offenders whose crimes had nothing to do with the pardoner. The Bushes have made history by committing treason, war crimes, and malfeasance, and using their pardoning/commuting authority to reward and silence their accomplices.

    Posted by samcrossett at 07/03/2007 @ 1:41pm

49. The difference here is that most presidents, like Washington, Harding, and yes, Clinton, pardon offenders whose crimes had nothing to do with the pardoner. The Bushes have made history by committing treason, war crimes, and malfeasance, and using their pardoning/commuting authority to reward and silence their accomplices.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 07/03/2007 @ 1:41pm

    They will never grasp that "subtle" difference.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 1:45pm

50. antiliberal-I don't buy into the excuse of-Other kids do it.This was a cover up and not a commutation because Bush believes the penalty was too harsh.If Bush believed that then he would have commuted many sentences long ago.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 1:51pm

51. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 07/03/2007 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

    very fine. it needed to be said.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 1:57pm

52. The difference here is that most presidents, like Washington, Harding, and yes, Clinton, pardon offenders whose crimes had nothing to do with the pardoner. The Bushes have made history by committing treason, war crimes, and malfeasance, and using their pardoning/commuting authority to reward and silence their accomplices.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 07/03/2007 @ 1:41pm

    Pure unsubstantiated leftist BS.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 2:06pm

53. antiliberal-I don't buy into the excuse of-Other kids do it.This was a cover up and not a commutation because Bush believes the penalty was too harsh.If Bush believed that then he would have commuted many sentences long ago.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 1:51pm

    Nonsense, you and others are merely regurgitation leftist opinion. There are no facts to support your bias.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 2:08pm

54. sorry, typed faster than my brain....

    regurgitating, not regurgitation.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 2:09pm

55. antiliberal-Your belief that everything is a leftist plot puts you in with rese.I do have facts,unlike you, who made up that this was a leftist witch hunt.Here are facts.Libby and his defense team spent two months trying to get permission to put on a massive defense which was to include the vice president.When it came time for Libby to put on a defense he suddenly had no need to put on a defense.Why?Because he was promised no time.Obviously.Of course,as gullible as you are you'll make up some reason that includes a leftist plot for why Libby suddenly decided that he didn't need to put on a defense,but even many non leftists have figured out why Libby put on no defense.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 2:17pm

56. This is a case of one criminal pardoning another criminal.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 07/03/2007 @ 2:27pm

57. sorry, typed faster than my brain....

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 2:09pm

    Easily understood in the context of your complete ignorance of the topic.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 2:29pm

58. This really is a case of the President Who Cried Wolf. Not sure it's funny or sad but see the timeline laid out here: http://theointment.com/?m=20070703

    Enjoy, Steve

    Posted by The Ointment at 07/03/2007 @ 2:54pm

59. Mason suggested that impeachment would surely be in order were a president to attempt "to stop inquiry and prevent detection" of wrongdoing within his administration -- as the Bush White House is currently doing with its use of executive privilege to undermine congressional investigations of the politicization of federal prosecutions. Equally, the thoughtful founder suggested, impeachment would be in order were a president might to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" -- as Bush has essentially done with the commutation of the sentence of his own former counselor and the chief of staff of his vice president.

    Time to go, booosh. And take your little dog with you...

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=210216

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 2:55pm

60. People here should know that ANTILIBERAL (formerly, LVLIBERTYY1) has:

    * Posited that NATION readers are "sub-human". All should feel free to ask the self-proclaimed Holy Man about this position and why he continues to post here;

    * Trashed the idea that global climate change exists because, ANTILIBERAL insists, the scientific community that studies it is monolithically socialist;

    * Championed the Falwell view that 9/11 was a great blow against homsexuality, necessarily, since it opened our eyes to the arc of causality for the massacre. ANTILIBERAL backed this up one with bible quotes;

    * Endorsed the "Coming Soon!" status of The Rapture; and

    * Characterized Newt Gingrish a "family man" and GW Bush as a "leader".

    That is some usefully eye-opening - but by no means exchaustive - background. Just so you know. So you know just precisely where this hideously twisted degenerate creep, ANTILIBERAL, is coming from, with his pieties and snarls about "lies" (other people's, that is).

    And now, he says:

    This entire episode has been just another left-wing witchunt. A small segment of our society, aided and abetted by a leftwing media and power-hungry Democrats who care neither for law or truth has been engaged in a war against conservatives in this country. A truly misguided effort when we see the true enemy of radical Islam remains a serious threat to freedom

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 12:12pm

    When one reside at THE most whacked-out fringe of the right - among fellow travellers far too tightly wound up in their "hate America!" rages wound to, say, fornicate like normal people - such meagre renditions of heinous rightwing propaganda come readily. But let's examine a few facts, in this case taken from Scott Horton's online column in HARPERS. Informational highlights in bold, in case any one is in a hurry:

    I salute Orin Kerr who yesterday offered some of the most penetrating analysis yet of the delusional criticism that comes from the Neocons:

    The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political." I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

    I find this claim bizarre. I'm open to arguments that parts of the case against Libby were unfair. But for the case to have been purely political, doesn't that require the involvement of someone who was not a Bush political appointee? Who are the political opponents who brought the case? Is the idea that Fitzgerald is secretly a Democratic party operative? That Judge Walton is a double agent? Or is the idea that Fitzgerald and Walton were hypnotized by "the Mainstream Media" like Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian Candidate? Seriously, I don't get it.

    And add to this the fact that the appellate panel that turned Scooter down was heavy with GOP power figures, most notably Judge Sentelle--the man who hand-picked Ken Starr to head the Whitewater scandal because he thought Robert Fisk, the prosecutor then in charge, wasn't partisan enough. But they unanimously rejected Libby's plea for a stay pending appeal.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 07/03/2007 @ 2:56pm

61. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 07/03/2007 @ 1:41pm

    Pure unsubstantiated leftist BS.

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 2:06pm

    SAMCROSSEETE can defend himself, ANTILIBERTY, as he has ably demonstrated many times and since he is infinitely more intelligent than you are and in command of facts that you are furiously determined to deny exist.

    I shall just attempt to puncture the air-tight bubble of vein-popping anger in which you dwell to ask: Are aware that SAM has identified himself as a 1980s Reagan Republican who is disgusted with what the party has become?

    What do you think of that, ANTI? Any thoughts at all on the matter? Any bible quotes for us - or do you want to change the topic to, say, Clinton?

    Perhaps SAM did not leave the party. Perhaps ... the party left him when it started pandering to the likes of you ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 07/03/2007 @ 3:04pm

62. good posts Glenn.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 3:08pm

63. George H. W. Bush charged that those who disclose the identities of covert operatives are committing the equivalent of treason, while George W. Bush believes that those who lie under oath about such matters should receive less jail time than Paris Hilton.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/03/2007 @ 3:10pm

64. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/03/2007 @ 3:08pm

    Thanks, JOHHANNES. I hope you're doing great!

    I don't really have time to sterilize the whole site of all ANTILIBERTY's propagandistic black plagues (on the other thread, he was trying to conflate the two Gulf Wars and the salient resolutions in his McCarthy-lite clowning over GHW Bush's ambasador to Iraq - guy named Wilson, Joe Wilson). But, am off to address the other part of my life, so be sure to solidly whack ANTILIBERTY when/if he rears his head over the minaret.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 07/03/2007 @ 3:17pm

65. I wonder whether ANTILIBERAL is a 'small c' conservative - a true believer in sound fiscal policy, smaller government, and libertarianism. If so, we have something in common. The difference between us is that I no longer have any use for national socialists who call themselves 'Conservatives,' who have betrayed conservative principles - and our country.

    Posted by samcrossett at 07/03/2007 @ 7:31pm

66. George Washington pardoned two persons who had been convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. John Adams pardoned John Fries, who was convicted of treason after an abortive uprising in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, in 1799.

    After Thomas Jefferson assumed the Presidency in 1801, he pardoned members of the Democratic Societies, most of them his political supporters, who had been convicted of violating the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/pardon-power

    Jefferson, the father of the Democratic party pardoned political supporters guilty of Sedition.

    The left only knows hate including their hatred of history and facts.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 7:42pm

67. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person

    they did not pardon their criminal employees, did they?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 8:06pm

68. they did not pardon their criminal employees, did they?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/03/2007 @ 8:06pm

    Neither did Bush, although I certainly hope that he does since the conviction was a mockery of justice.

    Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 8:26pm

69. Interesting example, ANTILIBERAL. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted under an unconstitutional law whose only crime was denouncing the dictatorial aspirations and unlawful actions of a regime that identified the public good with its own continued grip on power. Perhaps what the left knows is that free speech is a surer guarantor of liberty than the paranoid manipulations of a handful of 'divine right' types.

    Posted by samcrossett at 07/03/2007 @ 8:30pm

70. another surefooted political move by Bush. hahahahaha.

    the repubs are genuflecting in public, while tearing their hair out in private. they see the deluge coming.repubs raus.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2007 @ 2:47pm