On March 6, 2007, a jury found former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby guilty on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. On June 5, Libby was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release. And yesterday, President Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence. Here's what Bush had to say about his reasoning on this matter:
I respect the jury?s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby?s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
Let's get this straight: Bush says he respects the jury's verdict (guilty, big time!) but then says he does not agree that the punishment fits the (serious) crime. Sounds to me like George W. Bush needs a lesson on what constitutes "illegal" in this country, because he obviously doesn't understand.
Sadly, neither do leading Republican Presidential candidates. First, here's Rudy "Tough on Crime" Giuliani:
After evaluating the facts, the President came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct.
So much for Rudy being "tough on crime." Hey Rudy, what part of the word "illegal" don't you understand?
Now, here's Fred "Law and Order" Thompson:
While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.
Law and order? Tough on crime? Sure, if you're a poor minority in this country, Republican politicians are all for it. Just ask Rudy "41 Shots" Giuliani what he thinks.
In contrast, if you're a well-connected, powerful Republican who has broken the law and been duly sentenced, apparently the politically correct answer by fellow Republicans is, "let 'em go!" So once again, I ask, "what part of the word 'illegal' don't these Republicans understand?"
Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI.George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.
Today's decision is yet another example that this administration simply considers itself above the law," said Clinton of Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence. "This case arose from the administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies.Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.
This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.
Now, it's time for all Americans to take their country back, to declare Independence from people who scorn our Constitution, and to grab back the reins of power from a bunch of people who would rather enrich Halliburton and Bechtel than provide American kids with health care. Conservatism is a warped value system. The answer is Progressivism, which of course Conservatives have worked to demonize (along with liberalism) for so many years. Now, the conservatives have managed to demonize themselves, which to me seems highly appropriate. In 2008, it's time to usher in a new era of Progressivism, and to sweep away the failed experiment of the past 13 years since Newt Gingrich and his "Contract ON America" swept into town.
If they want to add additional charges like deceit, torture, rendition, and domestic spying...good!
Bobby Scott and Rick Boucher are two Democrats on the committee that should hear from their constituents.
Now, getting back to 2007, let's review the Bush/Cheney list of impeachable offenses:
*Misleading Congress (and the American people) in order to convince them into passing the Iraq War Resolution
*Repeatedly ordering the National Security Agency to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
*War profiteering, no-bid contracts to to Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton.
*Violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; condoning and encouraging torture.
*Subverting the Constitution?s separation of powers through "signing statements" and other means
*Revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent
*Creating the secret Cheney Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of open-government laws.
I could go on and on, but these are more than sufficient to impeach and convict both Bush and Cheney of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that Bush and Cheney will be impeached, because arguably they are as bad or worse than Richard Nixon.
So lets address some of your purported impeachable offenses:
*The intelligence on Iraq was bad, but don't overlook the fact that it was sufficient to cause a majority of the Senate Democrats to vote for the war. Are you saying that they are too dumb to see thru false intel? If so, none of them belong in the Senate, much less the White House. Saddam's own people were trying to convince him that he had viable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. No surprise that they also convinced the CIA. One of their sources was Saddam's brother-in-law.
*The so-called "no-bid contracts" to Halliburton were actually task orders under LOGCAP III, a contract that KBR won in 2001 under a full & open competition against DynCorp and others. Halliburton bought KBR after KBR won the contract.
*Talk about subverting the law and the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habis corpus and ordered military tribunal trials of US citizens in states not in the Confederacy. Oh, that's right. He was a Republican, too.
*Richard Armitage was the one who outed Valerie Plame and Robert Novak published it. How come they have yet to do the perp walk?
I, too, could go on and on. However, if any of your high crimes and misdemeanors are supported by evidence, how come the wuzzy Democrats in Congress haven't passed a bill of impeachment?
BTW, I voted for Clinton twice.
*You're seriously arguing that there have been no shenanigans in Iraq contracting at all? No need for a "Modern Day Truman Commission," as Webb called for during his campaign? I find that really hard to believe.
*Lincoln's actions were taken while a large portion of the country was under active rebellion. That's a completely different story, and I think most legal scholars and historians would agree that what Lincoln did - temporarily, by the way, and only in Maryland and a few other scattered places, like southern Indiana - is not at all in the same league as what Bush and Cheney have done since 9/11.
*Yes, Armitage was Robert Novak's source on the Plame story, but what does that have to do with the fact that Cheney and Libby were almost certainly involved in "outing" her?
Are you saying that 9-11 was less of a crisis than the War of Yankee Agression? (It wasn't a civil war. That is defined as a conflict in which rebels are seeking to seize control of the central government.)
The legal scholars and historians who think that what Lincoln did was no big deal do not include the US Supreme Court and the Congress. See Ex Parte Milligan and the Posse Comitatus Act.
Too many politicians will do anything to remain in power
Money = access = policy
Defned your "party people" at all costs
P.S. I'm willing to give Obama a chance to prove me wrong
This last one is about blogs in general
One other point its always easier to criticize. In the blogosphere the negative hit pieces greatly outnumber the postivies ones. People love to complain which is basically what blogging is all about :-p.
Also, are you seriously arguing that the tremendous amount of information provided by the blogosphere is all irrelevant, that it's still just a bunch of "complainers?" So, when I go cover events and report on them here, or when Webb volunteers posted their photos, videos and written accounts of events they had attended, that was all "complaining?" That's just incredibly insulting and also incorrect.
Oh, and our efforts to "Draft James Webb" were about "complaining," right? That was all negative, nothing positive about Webb or our hopes for the country?
A few more examples:
*Ben Tribbett's analysis of the Virginia State Senate and House of Delegates is "complaining?" Gee, and here I thought it was an immensely valuable service he was providing to people like you, for FREE! Yet all you can do is diss Ben's efforts? Nice.
*The excellent reporting on Virginia Beach by Eileen Levandoski of VBDems.
*The great work that Waldo Jaquith has done for several years, including his tremendous efforts in 2005 at electing Tim Kaine and other Democrats.
*Our hard work in investigating the links between politicians and their major contributors, that's all complaining huh? And here I thought it was actually a valuable service.
*Our work to raise money for candidates we support through ActBlue and other means? I guess the $4.2 million we, the netroots, provided to the Webb campaign in 2006 was just "complaining?"
You know, it's very easy to make flippant, rude, ignorant comments under cover of a pseudonym, but that doesn't mean anyone has to give them any credibility whatsoever. And in this case, nobody should.
Face it at least 90% of political blog posts are people complaining
I don't have time to once again deconstruct all of your arguments but briefly
Ben has a good post and then right after its another post "complaining" about Marsden
The majority of Waldos posts are either "complaining" about Republicans or are him pontificating why he is so much better than the rest of us
For the record this is once again a bipartisan issue.
Now for all of that I actually think blogs are great. I keep coming back don't I :-p. Also, its no secret that this blog brings a core group of perhaps as many as 1,000 solid D people together. (Now whose to say that these people would already be working) But regardless it is an impressive feet.
The difference is I dont have rosy colored glasses on... ever.
Have a wonderful Independence Day and celebrate the freedom to be a dyed in the wool lib... I mean progressive :-p or a Realist (my new label for today) or whatever the heck you want to be :-)
By the way, I just went to Waldo's blog and I didn't see one post that I'd consider to be "complaining." Outrage at something, perhaps, like Ann Coulter? Sure, but that's quite different than "complaining." By your reasoning, people who fought against Jim Crow were just "complaining." People who protest the Iraq War are just "complaining." People who protets illegal immigration - or fight for a path to earned citizenship - are just "complaining." Etc., etc. That's just utterly absurd, unless you've got a VERY unusual definition of "complaining."
1. Is the exposure of a covert agent. By the admission of CIA head Hayden Plame was covert.
2. The second prong is to have done so "knowingly".
The second prong is difficult to prove because of intent. Libby's obstruction made it impossible to determine one way or another whether this outing was done in full awareness of Plame's covert status.
The penalty for a violation is up to 10 years and a $500,000 fine.
So in a very real way the obstruction was successful--the penalty that Libby faced was 30 months and $250,000. And now it's nothing. The fine will be paid indirectly by taxpayers--who are funding the Cheney private sector machine; and as far as the loss of his law license goes, Libby will do just fine. He is current on the payroll at the Hoover Institute pulling in a nice 6 figure salary.
To the best of my recollection Clinton was not implicated in a case of obstruction of justice involving the outing of a CIA agent.
Clinton may also be white rich and powerful, but his crime referred to the DoJ by the CIA; his crime was not prosecuted by a Bush appointed prosecutor and judges; his crime was not reviewed by an appeal board--including two Republican appointees.
Additionally Clinton did not pardon a subordinate in a case in which he himself may very well have been implicated.
Are you really making your case based on Clinton's pardon record? You know, the ones ranging from campaign contributor Marc Rich to Whitewater co-conspirator Susan McDougal who went to prison rather than testify about the Clintons' role in the swindle? Clinton's (ab)use of the pardon power was so egregious that there was serious discussion in Congress of limits to future Presidential pardons, such as requiring confirmation by the Senate.
To borrow a phrase from Lowell, "Puh-leeese!"
But, I know, its all about the here and now and Clinton is just a red herring. BS.
Was McDougal a subordinate, and public servant? No.
Did McDougal actually serve part of her sentence? The answer here is yes. 18 months including 6 weeks in solitary confinement.
How many hours did Libby serve?
May I suggest that you start with Henry Cisneros, his subordinate HHS Secretary and public servant, and Roger Clinton, the First Brother.
After that, take a look at the additional 70 pardons issued on November 21 and December 20, 2000.
210 Presidential pardons in the final 60 days of an administration was unprescedented and is a record that is likely to stand for some time. Not even Nixon (or Ford) came close.
The proof is in the rule, not the exception.
Roger Clinton's crime of drug possession, which was wiped from his record, was not committed in the capacity as a public servant. He did not lie to protect his bosses. His bosses were not arguing for a 33 month sentence in an amicus brief (Rita v. U.S.) in a parallel case two weeks before they suddenly decided that 30 months was "excessive" for one of their own.
What about those other pardons. YOU tell me. That's how the burden of evidence works.
How do they parallel the commutation of Libby's prison sentence?
You cite the Clinton number, but you don't cite parallels to the Libby case. It's because you can't, or your just lazy. One president exercised the authority in cases largely consistent with the principle of pardoning those who have done their time over 100 times; the other violated the principle in one instance to cover his ass.
You threw out the number, now back it up with facts. Tell me the cases where Clinton's pardons rewarded a subordinate for covering his ass. Tell me a case where he refused to apply the standard of Justice that his own DoJ was arguing for just TWO weeks before a commutation. Why one standard of justice for a complete stranger, but a substantially lower standard for a friend who can do you real damage--politically and perhaps even legally?